Claim Form from County Court Business Centre

[John Lemon]

Hi,

We have a car park at our business centre where our office is located. We have been there for 10 years and have always paid for the yearly parking permit, except in 2020, of course, because we were all working from home, except on odd occasions when I had to pop into the office. And due to that I never purchased the yearly parking permit, and when I wanted to park I would get a day's permit from the reception and leave it on the dashboard. It is a flimsy small piece of paper that can fly off the dashboard upon closing the door.

I remember on one occasion finding a parking ticket stuck to the windscreen even though I had the permit but it wasn't fully visible. As I normally do with such parking tickets, I ignored it and binned all the subsequent threatening letters, since - as I understand - they have no legal authority to issue parking tickets.

Over the weekend, I received a letter from the County Court Business Centre, dated 05/11/2021, stating the following:

The driver of the vehicle with registration ****** (the 'Vehicle') parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract') at ***** **** *** on 16/10/2020, 18/11/2020, 11/12/2020, 02/10/2020 thus incurring the parking charges (the PCN's). The PCN's were not paid within 28 days of issue. The Claimant claims the unpaid PCN's from the Defendant as the driver/keeper of the Vehicle. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 per PCN, £70 per PCN contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £50.02 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, counting at £0.15 per day.

Amount claimed: £730.02
Court fee: £70.00
Legal representative's costs: £70.00
Total amount: £870.02

I was puzzled to see the set of dates above as I only remember the one occasion, and of course the total amount.

Any advice on how to take this further will be appreciated.

Thanks

[echat11]

Hi Lemon

ostell Can you take a look and advise, many thanks.

[ostell]

So CPR 31.14 request to the solicitors for copies of all the documents they intend to use in court, including pictures of the signs that allegedly created the contract.

SAR to parking company

look up Excel v Wilkinson for abuse of process by adding additional charges

[echat11]

https://legalbeagles.info/library/gu...-of-documents/

https://legalbeagles.info/library/gu...ccess-request/

[John Lemon]

Thanks echat11 and ostell I will do this and keep you posted.

[John Lemon]

ostell btw, they have spelt my name wrong in the claim form (used an E instead of an A at the end of my first name), can this be used to my advantage somehow? I ask because I was once issued a PCN by the council where the attendant got the name of the street wrong due to which they had to cancel the PCN, so just wondering if this could also be the case here?

[John Lemon]

Hi ostell ,

So I submitted my defence a while ago and argued my case on two grounds: 1) the claimant has failed to give a warning of keeper liability on the signs displayed as required by section 9 (2) (f) and 2) An abuse of process citing Excel v Wilkinson case.

I have now received a letter from the solicitors that says:

"We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of the CLaimant's intention to process with the Claim.

Please find enclosed a copy of the Claimant's completed Directions Questionnaire, which has also been filed with the Court.

You will note the Claimant has elected to mediate in an attempt to settle this matter amicably, without the need for further Court intervention. Should you agree to mediation, please inform the Court who will contact both parties to arrange a mediation appointment."

I assume I should refuse mediation since the law is on my side.

However, I read on your site that once the defence has been submitted, the Court should send me a Directions Questionnaire, but I haven't received any such document from the Court, hitherto. I am concerned as the guidance on your site suggests if I don't fill it in and send it back to the court in time, my defence will be struck out. There are also no further updates to the case on the Money Claim website.

What should I do?

[MIKE770]

once defence gone in no more updated on money claim ring court ask about directions form?

[John Lemon]

Hi all,

Just to update you all; we had a mediation session where the party offered £70 off from the extortionate £870 as a settlement. I said it does not seem like a sincere effort at meeting in the middle and none of my points raised previously have been addressed and as such, I suggested that we both cover our costs and walk away.

They refused and the matter has now gone to court.

Is there anything I need to prepare for?

[MIKE770]

await next court notice probably witness satatement

[John Lemon]

Hi all (and in particular ostell ),

My hearing was scheduled for tomorrow at 2pm, but suddenly midday today I received an notification from the court stating that it has been rescheduled for 10 am in the morning. All of this at a very short notice which I find rather odd.

But in any case, and more to the point. The claimant has responded to my defence as follows, so any advice on this will be appreciated:

1. The Defence is denied in its entirety.

2. Paragraph 5(1) of POFA 2012 allows the parking operator to pursue the Keeper for unpaid charges
subject to certain conditions being met. The first condition being that the parking operator must be
“unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not
know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver”. In this case,
each of the PCNs (Notices to Driver) were affixed to the vehicle at the time of each contravention.
Those notices gave the driver the option of paying the PCNs at the discounted rate of £60 or to
submit appeals. (Document 1) Neither were done nor was any response received. As a result, the
driver was not identified.

3. The second condition is that the parking operator must have given a notice to driver followed by a
notice to keeper. As set out above, each of the PCNs issued to the driver were affixed to the
vehicle; when no response was received, postal notices were issues to the registered keeper.
(Document 2)

4. No response having been received to the Keeper notices, the Claimant is entitled to pursue the
Keeper for the unpaid charges.

5. Paragraph 9(2)(f) referred to by the Defendant does not require the keeper liability notices to be
displayed on the signs. The Defendant appears to have misinterpreted this paragraph.

6. The period of parking is clearly set out on the PCNs as shown at Document 1.

7. The Defendant’s assertions as to double recovery and abuse of process are denied. As the
Defendant failed to pay each of the charges within the 28 days allowed or the further 28 days
allowed after the Notice to Keeper was sent, the Parking Charges became overdue and a
reasonable sum of £70.00 has been added. These additional costs are referred to in the signage on
display at the site and referred to in the Liability Notices sent to the Registered Keeper.

8. By virtue of the IPC Code of Practice where a parking charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum
may be added. This sum must not exceed £70 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless Court
Proceedings have been initiated. The Claimant therefore seeks an additional amount of £70 in
addition to the monies in respect of the unpaid PCNs as a contractual entitlement which the Court
should enforce. The Claimant however understands that the additional costs, as to the amount, are
completely at the courts discretion and are subject to its equitable power to disallow unreasonable
expenses. It is the Claimant’s position however, that as the PCNs remained unpaid, additional
costs were incurred by them that were both reasonable and reasonable and proportionate in the
circumstances of the case. The Company had to divert time and resources to recover the PCNs,
including but not limited to referring the matter to debt recovery services and instructing Solicitors
(incurring yet further expense), costs which would have been avoided had the Defendant paid the
PCNs within the 28 day period, specified in the notice.

9. The Defendant was given the option of paying each of the charges at reduced rate of £60 if paid
within 14 days. The Defendant chose not to accept this option. By the Defendant’s own failures
in continuing to breach the terms and conditions of parking and in failing to pay the charges when
they were due, he has allowed the matter to escalate to Court proceedings where further costs have
been incurred.

10. Pursuant to CPR, the Claimant is entitled to claim the issue fee and fixed costs at the time of
commencing proceedings. Had the Defendant acted reasonably by paying the charges or at least
responding, Court proceedings and further costs could have been avoided.

[charitynjw]

Hi all (and in particular ostell ),

My hearing was scheduled for tomorrow at 2pm, but suddenly midday today I received an notification from the court stating that it has been rescheduled for 10 am in the morning. All of this at a very short notice which I find rather odd.

But in any case, and more to the point. The claimant has responded to my defence as follows, so any advice on this will be appreciated:

1. The Defence is denied in its entirety.

2. Paragraph 5(1) of POFA 2012 allows the parking operator to pursue the Keeper for unpaid charges
subject to certain conditions being met. The first condition being that the parking operator must be
“unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not
know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver”. In this case,
each of the PCNs (Notices to Driver) were affixed to the vehicle at the time of each contravention.
Those notices gave the driver the option of paying the PCNs at the discounted rate of £60 or to
submit appeals. (Document 1) Neither were done nor was any response received. As a result, the
driver was not identified.

3. The second condition is that the parking operator must have given a notice to driver followed by a
notice to keeper. As set out above, each of the PCNs issued to the driver were affixed to the
vehicle; when no response was received, postal notices were issues to the registered keeper.
(Document 2)

4. No response having been received to the Keeper notices, the Claimant is entitled to pursue the
Keeper for the unpaid charges.

5. Paragraph 9(2)(f) referred to by the Defendant does not require the keeper liability notices to be
displayed on the signs. The Defendant appears to have misinterpreted this paragraph.

6. The period of parking is clearly set out on the PCNs as shown at Document 1.

7. The Defendant’s assertions as to double recovery and abuse of process are denied. As the
Defendant failed to pay each of the charges within the 28 days allowed or the further 28 days
allowed after the Notice to Keeper was sent, the Parking Charges became overdue and a
reasonable sum of £70.00 has been added. These additional costs are referred to in the signage on
display at the site and referred to in the Liability Notices sent to the Registered Keeper.

8. By virtue of the IPC Code of Practice where a parking charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum
may be added. This sum must not exceed £70 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless Court
Proceedings have been initiated. The Claimant therefore seeks an additional amount of £70 in
addition to the monies in respect of the unpaid PCNs as a contractual entitlement which the Court
should enforce. The Claimant however understands that the additional costs, as to the amount, are
completely at the courts discretion and are subject to its equitable power to disallow unreasonable
expenses. It is the Claimant’s position however, that as the PCNs remained unpaid, additional
costs were incurred by them that were both reasonable and reasonable and proportionate in the
circumstances of the case. The Company had to divert time and resources to recover the PCNs,
including but not limited to referring the matter to debt recovery services and instructing Solicitors
(incurring yet further expense), costs which would have been avoided had the Defendant paid the
PCNs within the 28 day period, specified in the notice.

9. The Defendant was given the option of paying each of the charges at reduced rate of £60 if paid
within 14 days. The Defendant chose not to accept this option. By the Defendant’s own failures
in continuing to breach the terms and conditions of parking and in failing to pay the charges when
they were due, he has allowed the matter to escalate to Court proceedings where further costs have
been incurred.

10. Pursuant to CPR, the Claimant is entitled to claim the issue fee and fixed costs at the time of
commencing proceedings. Had the Defendant acted reasonably by paying the charges or at least
responding, Court proceedings and further costs could have been avoided.

Wow....not much advanced warning, lol.
For the add-on costs, argue Lord Denning's 'Red Hand Rule' in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163.
Basically, the more onerous the term, the more important that it is clearly brought to the attention of those reading the terms. (Like a hypothetical big red hand pointing to it).
Also mention the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Unfair Terms. Any term in a consumer contract needs to be clearly understandable. A vague reference to additional costs does not, imho, cut it.

Good luck for tomorrow, btw.

[John Lemon]

So the judge upheld it all unfortunately. Only shaved off £30 from the add-on costs.

Lesson learnt: in the future, name the driver to protect myself from liability.

Thanks for your help, anyway!

[charitynjw]

So the judge upheld it all unfortunately. Only shaved off £30 from the add-on costs.

Lesson learnt: in the future, name the driver to protect myself from liability.

Thanks for your help, anyway!

One area where we truly see what is referred to as 'the judges lottery' is in private parking cases.
Where was the hearing?