Court Claim Form received from County Court Business Centre for Parking Fine unpaid

[Patel0121]

Post cleared as edited previous post

[Patel0121]

Hi DES8 (again) ,

Im sure your'e tired of the many questions in the past hour, please be forgiving.... however there is another on top of the ones above.

Hopefully Gladstones will discontinue when they realise there isa good defence.
However that might only be on the day of the hearing, when they decide not to turn up!

Defendant should expect to go to court, altho' it might be a telephone or zoom call now a days due to Covid!

Would you do a counter claim at this stage? Im thinking of the time off work for court and also the time/petrol taken to travel to the carpark etc.
Or would this all be spoken about if/when this goes to court?

[des8]

That is the correct Statement of Truth.

Regarding the signage you stated earlier that the sign said "permit Holders Only"

Can you post up the complete wording of that sign?

[Patel0121]

Hi DES8,

Sign typed out below (however some parts un-readable so have stated so)....
Also have shared photo again so you can try and see what I mean.

.........

Warden Patrolled Premises

THIS LAND IS PRIVATE PROPERTY

Failure to comply with the following terms & conditions may result in a parking charge

(logo of "P" in square and a educated guess (and google as others have taken pic before) on the blurred text below....)
A valid permit must be displayed for inspection at all times.

£100 Parking Charge
Reducing to £60 if paid within 14 days

Times of operation - 24 Hours 7 Days

Parking charges which are not paid within the given period will be passed to our debt recovery agent where you may incur additional charges.
Registered keeper details may be requested from the DVLA.

(very fine small print which is not readable)
........

[Patel0121]

OK, thanks

Hi,

Sign below taken from online source as seems this car park is notorious for handing out fines.

Note the title is cropped out "Warden patrolled premises"

[des8]

Change point 10 &; 11 to read:
10. The Driver entered the site, read the sign and, deciding not to park there, immediately left.
11.There was no acceptance of an offer to park, thus there was no contract
Delete point 8 and renumber accordingly

[Patel0121]

Hi

So the defendent has now been given a response by the solicitors and they have typed the bulk text out below. Also they have said they are will to mediate to come ro an amicable solution.

Typed out reply from solicitors....

As this car park is for permit holders only no grace period applies regardless of how short the vehicle stayed on site.

Without concession any contract entered at the time of the incident was between you and our Client and therefore the doctrine of 'privity' applies. In view of this it is irrelevant what our Client's agreement with any third party contained. In any event, we confirm that our Client did have authority to issue parking charges, but given that the contractual arrangement between our Client and their Client is commercially sensitive, it will only be disclosed should it be necessary for a Court to view it.

In support, the cases of VCS v HM Revenue & Customs (2013) and Parking Eye v Beavis (CA 2015) where it was made clear that a contracting party need not show they have a right to do what they have promised in the performance of a contract nor is (in the case of a parking operator) the agreement between Operator and Landowner of any relevance.

With the above, are they right? Still feel not having a sign at the entrance and only on the walls of the car park is wrong and being penalised the moment you enter is entrapment.

Thanks

[Patel0121]

Also sorry for not replying with a thanks to your last post. The defendent found this very helpful!

https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...y-court-busine

Thanks!

[des8]

I am wondering what prompted that response from the solicitors.
Did the defendant submit a defence different to that suggested?

[Patel0121]

Hi Des8

Nope, the defendent copied the suggestion with the edits agreed after too.

The evidence posted was photo of car, alleged signage and also alleged notices sent.

Seems strange to me.

[des8]

Well if the defendant wants to continue the tennis he could respond thanking the debt collectors for the template letter which does not address any of the points raised in the defence.
He could add that it seems to him the only reasonable course of action would be for the claimant to discontinue the action.
Accordingly he awaits their confirmation that they will file for discontinuance, and remove all the data they hold about him from their systems.
Warn them that if they fail to discontinue they could face a claim for his costs as a litigant in person for unreasonabe behaviour in pursuing a claim which
obviously has no merit.
Remind them that as solicitors they would be aware that as there was no intention by the driver to create legal relations there cannot exist an enforceable, legal and binding contract, and to pursue such a claim would be unreasonable.

[Patel0121]

Hi Des8,
Thanks again for the feedback above, the defendant did smile at this.

The defendant is unsure if the reply above is the right action as the claimants solicitors have requested that the matter be settled via mediation. This route seems pointless to the defendant as they are sure the claim is false, however willing to do as the hope is they seem how there is no merit in the claim.

Would you agree Des8 that mediation is necessary even though there is no case to answer?

Thanks

PS. sorry for the slow reply, had a few challenges myside.

[des8]

Mediation is a bit pointless if one is not prepared to pay something!

Have they suggested which mediation service, and who pays (unless it goes to the court mediation service after they file the claim)?

I would respond suggesting the small claims court mediation service would be considered a suitable service.

I suspect they realise their claim is tenuous and they are hoping to obtain something from this exercise.
If they agree to using the court service they will have to file their claim, and that is a cost they may not wish to risk!

[Patel0121]

Hi Des8,

Agree with your first point, and the defendant does too. However as the solicitors have advise to use the FREE mediation service offered by the courts, I will advise defendant to carry out mediation as hopefully they may see how pointless this claim is. Will make sure the defendant puts down the same; to use the free service.

The defendant and I feel like this is a tick box exercise for the solicitors to perceive themselves as trying to be "reasonable" toward the defendant, rather than anything else.

Also another note; the defendant has advised that the solicitors has provided a PDF artwork of the alleged signs on display at the carpark, however the defendant has noticed that the actual signs on display are actually in a different format (wording is the same in parts) however some symbols are actually not present in the actual sign.
QUESTION: Should the Solicitor actually provide photographic proof of the signs, as opposed to PDF artworks? Also should the evidence (artwork) be identical to the actual sign itself including symbols, format etc?

[Patel0121]

Hi Des8,

....

Also another note; the defendant has advised that the solicitors has provided a PDF artwork of the alleged signs on display at the carpark, however the defendant has noticed that the actual signs on display are actually in a different format (wording is the same in parts) however some symbols are actually not present in the actual sign.
QUESTION: Should the Solicitor actually provide photographic proof of the signs, as opposed to PDF artworks? Also should the evidence (artwork) be identical to the actual sign itself including symbols, format etc?

Hi Des8,

Any feedback on the questions raised please?

Your help is appreciated! :-)