#14 Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
on 08 Jul, 2024 16:03 in Private parking tickets
Quote from: Khadz on 08 Jul, 2024 09:52Quote from: b789 on 07 Jul, 2024 23:50Paragraph #1 is OK. Next should be the “Preliminary Matter” sub-heading with your paras #4 and #5 which now become #2 and #3.Next should be sub-heading “The facts known to the defendant” with what are your para #2 and #3 which then become #4 and #5 followed by the rest of the template.Maybe reword your para #3 which becomes para #5 along these lines:5. On the day in question, the defendant was taking her disabled mother to a local store. The defendant recalls displaying a disabled badge but it is possible that this may have fallen when placed. Due to the images provided, it is not clear whether or not there was or was not a badge on the vehicle5. On the day in question, the defendant was taking her disabled mother to a local store. The defendant recalls placing and displaying the disabled persons badge on the vehicle dashboard. The claimant is put to strict proof that a disabled persons badge was not displayed as they have not provided any clear evidence to the contrary.We still have not seen the contract with the landowner. Your link only shows the cover page. Is that the sum total of what they sent you?You will also note that the PoC state that the PCN was issued on the 21st August but the NtK shows it was actually issued on the 23rd August.Can we see all the other file photos that they have as their evidence? You are claiming that they have not shown any evidence that clearly shows no blue badge being displayed.Thank you for this. I will be sure to make the appropriate amendments.I linked this above but as we split the threads it may have got lost, please see the landowner contract all 4 pages.https://fuchsia-marcellina-40.tiiny.site/1st NTK: https://postimg.cc/8jNmqmxKFinal Notice: https://imgur.com/a/hQIIIHPRevised Draft:1.The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim('the PoC').The facts as known to the Defendant:Preliminary Matter. The claim should be struck out2. The Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £170, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The Claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. The Defendant respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the Claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the Defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.3. Furthermore, the Claimant's interest calculation is based on the full £170, and they have not provided a breakdown of how the additional £70 "damages" was calculated. The Claimant has also failed to provide full and proper disclosure of all documents, evidence, and the precise calculation of the alleged debt. Even if the "damages" were allowed to have interest calculated on them, the calculation is wrong which puts the rest of the Claimants particulars in doubt.Facts known to the Defendant4.The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case.The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action".The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the driver.5. On the day in question, the defendant was taking her disabled mother to a local store. The defendant recalls placing and displaying the disabled persons badge on the vehicle dashboard. The claimant is put to strict proof that a disabled person's badge was not displayed as the angle photographed does not properly show if in fact the badge was present but fell. 6. According to the PoC the claimant states that the PCN was issued on the 21st August but the NtK shows it was actually issued on the 23rd August. Contrary to what has been stated in their PoC. 7. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines. The copy of the signs provided by the claimants solicitors DCB Legal could be any sign and is not adequate evidence these were the signs present on the day in question. 8. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances, is a penalty, not saved by Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by the UK Government.9.The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap). It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred by this Claimant, who is put to strict proof of: (i) the alleged breach, which is not pleaded in the POC and requires further and better particulars, and (ii) a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced sum in the POC, including how interest was calculated, which looks to be improperly applied on the entire inflated sum, as if that was all overdue on the day of the alleged event. For example, the claimant avers 10.The Defendant avers that this claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due, whether in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.