First draft of my WS below, this was much easier when they sent theirs early and gave me the answers. Any and all feedback is very gratefully received...

Introduction

1.       I am the named defendant in this matter and I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed or any amount at all.

2.       Except where specifically stated or admitted, no other element of this claim is admitted; the Claimant is put to the strictest proof of every element of its claim.

3.       It is not admitted that the defendant either directly or indirectly or whether by conduct express or consent entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant to pay any parking charge or amount.

4.       The Claimant previously bought a case against the Defendant for an alleged infringement in the same car park. This Claimant’s case was dismissed (Exhibit 1 is the General Form of Judgement or Order)

Locus Standi

5.       The Claimant relies on warning notices erected throughout the development. A search of the Sheffield City Council planning portal shows no planning permission ever having been granted allowing signs to be erected at the address of the site. The lack of planning permission makes the erection of these signs illegal and therefore they cannot be relied upon as evidence in this case

6.       As no planning permission for the erection of signs has been granted, none of the signs in the car park has been authorised by the local Council under the Town and Country [advertisements] regulations 2007.

7.       The Claimant relies on a contract between Vehicle Control Services and Scottish Widows Investment Property Trust c/o Jones Lang LaSelle as proof the Claimant has authority to implement a parking scheme. This contract has been in effect from 7 November 2011.

8.       The contract states ‘The Company will provide a parking control service at the Car Park for a fixed period of 36 months from the 7th day of November 2011’

9.       The contract does not state that it can roll past 2014 by default nor is there proof that Scottish Widows Investment Property Trust paid the Claimant in 2022 making the contract null and void.

10.   This puts the Claimant in breach of their agreement with Scottish Widows where they agree to comply with the IPC Code of Conduct 2.42 Be compliant with all necessary legislation.

11.   The Claimant in paragraph 61 of the WS refers to Parking Eye v Beavis, in his summary of this case Lord Neuberger stated ‘111] " ........And, while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. In assessing the fairness of a term, it cannot be right to ignore the regulatory framework which determines how and in what circumstances it may be enforced."’ As this was a Supreme Court judgement, all lower Courts must follow.

12.   This means the Claimant does not comply with DVLA terms either. The Claimant assure all three companies that they are compliant when they are not. Their right to apply for motorists data from the DVLA relies on them being compliant with IPC Code of Conduct. So it calls into question their right to even have applied to the DVLA for the Defendants data which would be a breach of GDPR.

Keeper liability

13.   Exhibit 2 is a screenshot of paragraph 9 of Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012), sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 have been highlighted. Sub-paragraph 4 (b) states that if the Notice to Keeper is sent by post it must be delivered to that address within the relevant period. Sub-paragraph 5 states that the relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph 4 is the period of 14 days beginning with the days after that on which the specified period of parking ended allows the Claimant, whereby as the notice to keeper was issued by post, 14 days to deliver to that address.

14.   As the issue date on the Parking Charge Notice was 30 June 2016, 19 days after the alleged contravention occurred. The Claimant cannot pursue the registered keeper under keeper liability.

15.   As the Claimant has been unable to identify the driver at the time of the alleged infringement, they have pursued the Defendant as the register keeper of the vehicle. Given the alleged infringement occurred over 6 years ago, it is unreasonable for the Claimant to expect the Defendant to remember who was driving the vehicle.

Recovery of costs

16.   The Claimant in claiming not only £100 for the PCN plus court fee and interest, but a completely invented sum of £60 for which there is no justification. This seems to be a way of attempting to bypass the limit on costs at small claims.

17.   It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for nearly six years in order to claim as much interest as possible.

18.   In ParkingEye Limited V Somerfield Stores Limited (8MA91364), Judge Hegarty stated in paragraph 419 ‘It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.’ It can be reasonably presumed that the Defendant would know of this judgement so once again, it would seem risking being held in contempt of court that anyone would sign a Statement of Truth after another outrageous claim.

Conclusion

19.   As the Claimant has been unable to identify who was driving at the time of the alleged infringement they have pursued action against the Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

20.   The Claimant cannot rely on POFA 2012 to pursue the Defendant under Keeper Liability as they failed to serve the Notice to Keeper in the prescribed timescale.

21.   The Claimant has ignored correspondence from the Defendant and pursued legal action they are unable to substantiate.

22.   The Claimant has failed to provide evidence they sought planning permission for the erection of signs on the site.

23.   The Claimant has failed to provide a compliant contract demonstrating authority or a chain of authority to manage parking on the Land.

24.   The Claimants previous action was in the same car park and is therefore a persuasive case that the Claimants case has no merit

The Defendant respectfully submits that the Claim is entirely without merit and therefore it is requested that the Claim is struck out and the case dismissed with any legal costs of the Defendant being reimbursed.