Parking fine - overstay - 2 yrs later proceeding to court

[Apo100l]

Hi there.

Time sensitive topic:

some 2yr ago - overstayed on BP petrol station having multiple coffees with long time friend.
Being minutes away from my home, did not even fought of parking restrictions as was 2-3 months buying diesel.
As self employed at a time, paid always cash (no receipt to prove genuine stay)
2-3 weeks later received a penalty letter that I disputed, as DRIVER NOT seen signage as was late evening and was genuine customer.
manager was not helpful at all, to help cancel this .

anyways I moved house letting them know of the new address, and it was nothing for about 6months.
then DCBl letter received by post - pre court ( or and final reminders)

due to some travel and personal issues missed window to dispute and argue ..
Now 2 yrs later received a Claim form to court.

need to defend/ respond this week.
claim now grown to £300

question 1: can I find anyone to have help defending claim in Court at this point?
question 2: bite the lip and pay the unfair fine…?
any other advice…

[des8]

Have you identified the driver to the parking company or DCBL?
Do you have a copy of the original Parking Charge Notice?
If yes please post up copy.

Post up copy of claim form.

Remove identifying details from all forms before posting, but leave in all dates and times

[Apo100l]

Please see attached scanned letters. Took a bit of time to find paperwork and get assistance to digital document’s covering sensitive info.

[des8]

Have you acknowledged receipt of claim form?
needs to be done within 14 days of receipt, which is two days after date of issue.

If not do so NOW, but do not enter defence yet.

You were asked to leave in all dates on documents...........!

You will need to send a Subject Access letter to Met Parking services, and a CPR 31.14 request to DCBL
There are templates (which need adjusting to your situation) in the SHORTCUTS panel on the right.
Send them first class post with free certificate of posting from post office

[Apo100l]

Thanks for the engagement.
Date of the contravention: 31/1/2020
Dates of the DCBL Letters kept with the dates:
notice of debt recovery - 18/jan/23
final reminder - 07/feb/23
final notice of debt recovery -08/mar/23
notice of intended legal action - 04/apr/23
letter of claim - 06/oct/23
claim form - issue date 21/nov/23

Just found that there was some communication done back then with MET - attaching emails from MET

[Apo100l]

Found some letters from earlier-
1 - is some email sent to MET
2 - is response from MET

[des8]

Do send the letters as suggested in post 4.

Whether or not you receive any responses you come back here by 18th Dec and we can draft an appropriate defence for you if you want.

[Apo100l]

Hi there,

could you please help drafting the defences letter to court.

[des8]

Have you received any responses to your letters we suggested you send in post 4?
Did you acknowledge re3ceipt of the claim form?

[Apo100l]

Hi yes I did filled in acknowledgment form online, however did not do the defence as advised above.

no response received so far as was sent end of last week.
they not that quick usually?

today 18/12/23 and would appreciate defence drafting assistance..

[des8]

Please post up the claim form ... we need to know what you are defending!

[Apo100l]

The claim form was uploaded earlier however the link seems do not work.
hence please see attached.

[des8]

Sorry for delay, but distracted with family emergencies.
Suggest you look at, understand and amend this draft defence supplied by R0b
Some of it may not apply. but be sure not to state anything which is untrue
You have until 24th Dec to file and serve your defence, so a few days in which to study and come back for clarification if needed

1. Unless otherwise stated in this Defence:
   1. all references to paragraph numbers are to paragraph numbers in the Particulars of Claim;
   2. the Defendant uses the same terminology as the Claimant has employed in the Particulars of Claim; and
   3. the Defendant denies each and every allegation and, for the reasons set out in this Defence, the Claimant is not entitled to any relief.

Claimant’s non-compliance with CPR 16.4

1. By way of general comment, the Claimant has failed to properly plead its case in accordance with CPR 16.4(1)(a) for the following reasons:
   1. the Particulars of Claim:
      1. states that a contract was agreed between the Claimant and the Defendant but fails to explain how or where the Contract was entered into;
      2. states that the driver was in breach of the Contract but fails to provide any description or details as to what term(s) of the Contract the Defendant has supposedly breached that had given rise to the PCN(s);
      3. refers to “PCN(s)” which implies that there are, or may be, multiple parking charges which the driver and/or the registered keeper are liable to pay. The pleadings fail to provide any adequate explanation as to:
         1. the number of PCN(s) that the Claimant is seeking to claim against the Defendant together with an itemisation list of charges related to those PCN(s); and
         2. whether the PCN(s) (if more than one) were issued for the same breach of parking conditions at the same location or that the PCN(s) relate to different locations or both; and
      4. the Particulars of Claim alleges that the Defendant is liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle but fails to provide any reasons on which the Claimant relies upon to prove such liability.
2. 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 and discloses no cause of action for the reasons described in paragraph 2 of this Defence. 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.
3. Further, the Defendant is surprised by the poor drafting of the particulars given that the Claimant is represented professionally by a firm of solicitors who specialise in dispute resolution 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 files and re-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
   2. 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
   3. exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit.
4. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraphs, the Defendant intends to respond to the allegations raised in the Particulars of Claim as best [he/she] is able to do so.

Relevant facts

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of a [insert description of vehicle] with the registration number [insert vehicle registration number] (the “Registered Keeper”).
2. [insert relevant facts to the dispute]

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.
2. 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 a vehicle if certain conditions as prescribed in Schedule 4 are met.
3. The relevant POFA conditions applicable to this claim are annexed to this Defence (Annex 1).

Defendant’s liability as the driver of the vehicle

1. The Defendant has never (express or implied) agreed to pay the Claimant the Parking Charges within 28 days as alleged in the Particulars of Claim. Such a statement by the Claimant is entirely false and fundamentally dishonest. The Defendant requires the Claimant to provide satisfactory evidence that the Defendant agreed to pay the Claimant the parking charges within 28 days.
2. Further and alternatively, it is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the time the parking offence occurred. The Defendant has, on numerous occasions including in pre-action correspondence, requested the Claimant to supply to the Defendant with evidence that:
   1. the Claimant has the relevant legal authority to manage and enforce the car park by way of issuing parking charge notices; and
   2. the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the time the alleged parking infringement occurred.
3. Despite the request for proof, the Claimant has failed to produce any supporting evidence that demonstrates the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle when the alleged parking infringement took place. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant’s allegations are groundless, which appear to be nothing more than a fishing expedition and the Claimant has no lawful basis to pursue the Defendant as the driver of the vehicle.
4. If (which is denied), the Defendant is found to be liable for the PCN(s) as the driver of the vehicle, the Defendant will say that the PCN(s) are not enforceable because the signage at the car park was not sufficient to give the driver adequate notice of the parking terms and conditions. Specifically, there was no visible signage at the entrance of the car park nor within the vicinity of where the driver had parked the vehicle which indicated that the car park was subject to certain parking conditions. Given the Claimant’s poorly drafted particulars, the Defendant does not know what condition he has supposedly breached and is unable to properly plead a defence in respect of this allegation.
5. The Claimant, by way of correspondence, claims that there was adequate signage at the car park and seeks to rely on a sign that the Claimant says is clearly visible. The Defendant will say that:
   1. The sign referred to by the Claimant is erected at the rear of the car park, is obscured by various tree foliage and not clearly visible in relation to where the vehicle was parked, which was at the other end of the car park;
   2. The vehicle was parked on a dark evening and neither the car park nor the parking signs were adequately lit such that the visibility of the sign could not be seen; and
   3. As already referred to earlier in paragraph 15.1 of this Defence, the vehicle was parked at the opposite end of the car park to which the sign is referred to, so it was not reasonably possible for the driver to have seen or otherwise become aware of the sign.

Defendant’s liability as the Registered Keeper

1. It is denied that the Defendant is liable as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle for the PCN(s) as alleged and the Defendant repeats paragraphs 11-15 (inclusive) of this Defence.
2. Further and alternatively, the Defendant contends that the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions under POFA in order for the registered keeper to be held liable for the PCN(s):
   1. contrary to condition 5(1)(a), the Claimant has failed to provide evidence that it has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the PCN(s). The Claimant has indicated that there is a written contract between the Claimant and the landowner but the Claimant has failed to supply:
      1. a copy of the written contract setting out the Claimant’s authority to enforce and/or pursue the PCN(s) against the driver; and
      2. what (if any) conditions may be attached as regards the enforcement of the PCN(s).
   2. contrary to condition 6(1)(b) the notice issued to the Registered Keeper did not comply with the requirements of condition 9(2) in that:
      1. XXX
      2. XXX
      3. XXX
3. For the reasons stated in paragraph 17 of this Defence, the Claimant’s failure to comply with the conditions of Schedule 4 of POFA means that, pursuant to paragraph 4(2) of POFA, the Claimant is prohibited from pursuing the Defendant as the Registered Keeper.
4. Further and alternatively, condition 5(1)(b) of POFA forbids the Claimant from pursuing the Registered Keeper if the Claimant has knowledge of the driver and their details. In the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant represents, as a statement of fact, that “the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle”.
5. In light of such representation, the Claimant has actual and/or constructive knowledge of the driver’s identity. It follows that Claimant is cannot pursue the Defendant for the PCN(s) as the Registered Keeper. The Defendant will rely on paragraph 221 of the POFA 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 PCN(s)

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the recovery of its costs in respect of the PCN(s) against the Defendant as either the driver or the Registered Keeper for the following reasons:
   1. in respect of liability as the driver:
      1. the Defendant repeats paragraphs 12-17 (inclusive) of this Defence; or
      2. if (which is denied), it is found that reasonable notice was given, the Defendant will say that the term was 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. Section 68 of the CRA 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:
         1. the font size of the term is 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, or by using an alternative different method to ensure the parking terms were legible and easy to read; and
         2. the term refers to ‘charges’ but fails to explain what charges the Claimant is seeking to recover. The term described is vague and ambiguous contrary to the guidance published by the Competition and Markets Authority on unfair contract terms.
   2. in respect of liability as the registered keeper:
      1. The costs sought by the Claimant are based upon a contractual right under the terms of the parking contract. The Defendant relies on the doctrine of privity of contract in 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
      2. in any event, condition 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. Therefore, any associated costs in incurred by the Claimant in connection with the PCN(s) are not recoverable.

CONCLUSION

1. For the reasons 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 PCN(s) or to any relief as claimed.

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 …………………………………………..
NAME …………………………………………..
DATE …………………………………………..
Annex 1
Registered keeper liability conditions for payment of parking charges under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle
4 (1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—
(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met; and
(b) the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.
(3) For the purposes of the condition in sub-paragraph (2)(b), the vehicle is to be presumed not to be a stolen vehicle at the material time, unless the contrary is proved.
(4) The right under this paragraph may only be exercised after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given.
(5) The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).
(6) Nothing in this paragraph affects any other remedy the creditor may have

[Apo100l]

Thank you for ongoing support… seems over complicated text, but hopefully after spending some time can pull out someting together…

[des8]

It is not really over complicated, just exact
The Claim is poorly drafted, and to rebut it you need to be accurate

Not everything in that draft will necessarily apply, and i'll try and redraft for you later, but I do have a lot on my plate at the moment.