Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello All,

First time posting due to my dad's letter of claim from Parkingeye.

Backstory:
Back in august my dad went into a parking lot, leaving after not finding a suitable space, (10 mins and 10 secs according to the timestamped photos they sent). Shortly after he was hospitalised and has not been discharged still. As a result of his admission, the fine letter was missed and now we've received civil claim form. Ideally, we would have appealed the original issued fine if we'd got to it in time, but obviously there was a lot of critical stuff going on and he wasn't able to parse through his mail.

What is the best way to approach defending/responding to this?
Any help/templates etc. is very much appreciated!

The MOST important document you must show us, if you want assistance with this, is the N1SDT Claim Form you say you have received addressed to your father. DO NOT redact any dates of time shown on the form.

With an issue date of 17th November, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th December to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 22nd December to submit your defence.

You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0

Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.

You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 122 lines limit.

1. The Defendant was at all material times the registered keeper of the vehicle. Save for that, liability is denied. The identity of the driver is not admitted and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

2. The Particulars of Claim are brief and generic. They do not specify the contractual terms allegedly breached, give no breakdown of the sum claimed, and fail to plead any specified “period of parking”. They disclose no reasonable cause of action and the Defendant invites the Court to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4.

3. The Claimant relies on ANPR images showing only times of entry to and exit from the site, a total of around ten minutes. This merely evidences the vehicle driving on site in search of a space and then leaving when none was found. It does not prove that the vehicle was ever parked, nor that any contractual terms were accepted.

4. The Defendant avers that no contract was formed. No suitable bay was found, no parking took place, and the vehicle departed. Any time spent on site falls within the mandatory consideration and/or grace periods required by the relevant trade association Code of Practice, during which no parking charge may be levied. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any charge could arise in these circumstances.

5. The Claimant alleges “parking without a valid paid parking ticket” but has adduced no evidence of any bay used, the applicable tariff, or any shortfall in payment. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of the alleged breach.

6. The Claimant asserts reliance on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 but has provided no evidence that a fully compliant Notice to Keeper was served within the statutory time limits and containing all mandatory wording, including a specified period of parking and the required keeper invitation/ warning. The Claimant is put to strict proof of strict compliance. In the absence of such proof, there is no keeper liability.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that, at the material time, its signage was in place, prominent, legible and capable of forming a contract, including clear communication of the parking charge and key terms, supported by contemporaneous photographs and a site plan.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its legal standing to bring this claim by producing an unredacted, contemporaneous contract or chain of authority from the landowner, expressly permitting it to offer parking, enter into contracts, and to pursue motorists in its own name.

9. If, contrary to the Defendant’s primary case, a contract is found to have been formed, the Defendant avers that a charge of £130 for a very short failed attempt to park in a paid-parking facility is an unenforceable penalty and unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Any genuine loss, if established, would be limited to a small parking tariff. The facts are clearly distinguishable from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

10. Further, the amount claimed exceeds any original parking charge and is contrary to paragraph 4(5) of Schedule 4 PoFA, which limits recovery from a keeper to the sum specified in a compliant Notice to Keeper. Any additional sums, including but not limited to damages, debt collection or legal costs, are denied as unrecoverable double recovery.

11. The Defendant’s ability to deal with correspondence, including any earlier appeal, has been severely affected by serious and ongoing health issues. The Defendant was admitted to hospital around the material time and remains an inpatient at the date of this Defence, and has therefore been unable personally to manage or respond promptly to post. Any failure to respond or appeal earlier is fully explained by these circumstances, which the Defendant asks the Court to take into account on any issue of conduct or timeliness.

12. The Defendant accordingly denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed or to any sum at all and invites the Court to dismiss the claim.