Parking ticket

[Buckleystone]

Uploaded this again as it couldn't be viewed from my last attempt

[des8]

So your defence is due in about 2nd Dec so give us a nudge either when/if you receive a reply to your requests or around 25th Nov.
We can then help you draft a defence

[Buckleystone]

Thanks for your reply I've sent sar to euro car parks and cpr to dcbl so wait and see now till I start my defence before december

[Buckleystone]

So I've not heard anything from euro car parks or dcbl after sending sar and cpr shall I now do my defence would appreciate your help with it

[des8]

Can do, but be ready to amend it nearer the date if you receive responses.
Over weekend will draft a defence for you to consider/merge with yours

[Buckleystone]

Can't thank you enough for your time and guidance

[Buckleystone]

Just got home to find a letter from euro car parks requesting proof of identity and image of log book .I no longer have the car so sent an email with photo driving licence

[Buckleystone]

My driving licence wasn't enough proof of my Identity for euro car parks so had to find proof of ownership of the car, as I no longer have it ,so sent a copy of sales invoice wonder what they'll want next

[des8]

Don't worry about it
Draft defence coming soon!

[Buckleystone]

Thanks so much

[des8]

Here's the draft for you.
Do not just copy & paste it.
Read and understand it.
Check out the references to various acts and regulations
Make sure it is correct (especially para 15 onwards regarding the wording on the signs They usually refer in small print to "additional charges" or "costs" or "damages" )
Obviously feel free to use as much of it, or none of it, as you wish

Introduction

The defendant notes that the claimant failed to follow the CPR Pre-action protocol for debt claims

1..The Defendant received the claim xxx from DCB Legal Ltd on dd/mm/yy

2.Each and every allegation in the Claimant’s 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 Parking Charge(s) were issued to vehicle xxxx at xxxx but fails to state how they were issued, when they were issued and how many were issued
ii) states that PCN(s) were issued on 02.09.2021 but fails to state how many.
iii) states the claim is for £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages but fails to state how this total is computed
iv) the Claimant has failed to identify in which capacity the defendant is being pursued and is simply offering a menu of choices
a)C. pursues the defendant as driver, allegedly having entered into a contract with the Claimant but does not
explain how or on what basis the contract was entered into.or
b)C. pursues the Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle yet the Claimant has failed to particularise
the basis of that allegation.

The defendant notes the claimant has failed to respond to a CPR31.14 request timeously, and has supplied no documents on which it intends to rely

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 he does not know or understand the basis of the Claimant's case.
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. i) 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
2. ii) provide the necessary documentation in order for the Defendant to fully plead his case within 14 days of said order, then the claim shall be struck out and judgment entered in favour of the Defendant;
   iii) 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. iv) if the court considers it appropriate, to strike out the claim in whole or in part, on the basis that the claim discloses no reasonable grounds for a cause of action; and
   v) exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit

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.

Liability as driver

5.The Claimant has so far failed to provide any supporting evidence the Defendant was the driver. Accordingly, the Claimant's allegation is nothing more than a fishing expedition which the Defendant considers to be an abuse of process.

6. The Claimant asserts the reason the PCN(s) were issued was a "breach of the terms on the signs (the contract).Reason: the PandDpermit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking"

7.The claimant has failed to provide any supporting evidence for these allegations and has failed to respond to a CPR31.14 request



Liability as Registered Keeper

8 It is denied the Claimant is entitled to recover the Parking Charge

9. The claimant has failed top specify how liability for unpaid parking charges may be transferred from the driver to the registered keeper

11 The costs sought by the Claimant are based upon a contractual right under the terms of the alleged 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

12.In the alternative the Defendant contends the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions of POFA2012to transfer liability for unpaid charges to be transferred from the driver to the registered keeper in that contrary to condition 5(1)(b) of POFA2012 the Claimant implies the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle.

13.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:

1. " 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 "total of PCN(s)and damages"

14.. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the recovery of unspecified damages in respect of the PCN(s) against the Defendant for the following reasons:

15.The defendant , by visiting the car park subsequent to receiving the claim, notes the signage in the car park refers to a charge of £100 plus unspecified additional charges,

16. 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.

17. 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.

18.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/ charges.

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

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

21.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).

22. 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) )

23. Whilst not binding on this court the Defendant respectfully refers to the following case: G4QZ465V (Excel Parking Services Ltd vs Wilkinson - 1st July 2020) where District Judge Jackson considered a similar claim to be an abuse of process under the The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Sch 2 and section 61/ 61(1)/ 67). He found that striking out the claim was the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court could be shown

24. POFA2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5)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.

Any liability that would be owed by the keeper to the Claimant is limited to an amount that does not exceed the unpaid parking charge(s). The Claimant's pursuit of "damages" amounts to an abuse of process.

25. 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.

SIGNED …………………………………………..

Dated

[Buckleystone]

Thankyou for doing this I'm going to study it when I finish work I have received info from euro car parks I'm going to upload it for you to look at if that's ok when I'm home

[des8]

of course

[Buckleystone]

This info from ecp

[Buckleystone]

Sorry sent 2 by mistake