ParkingEye ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - New Directions Holdings, Lambourne Crescent, Llanishen, Cardiff, CF14 5GL ***Claim Discontinued***

[Cardiff Devil]

Cheers Dave.  Yeah I know exactly what you mean, it's tempting to go full nuclear on them and tell them exactly why they're talking bobbins.  

If I did that though, it'd probably run to 4 full pages.  And I get what you mean about keeping it for the witness statement later on.

I'll make the tweaks you suggested for now, and wait for a couple of weeks before posting in case anything else crops up that might be fun to stick in there. 

Thanks

CD

[Cardiff Devil]

Morning folks.  

Looks like the snotty letter didn't work.  I now have a claim form, deets below;

Name of the Claimant :  Parkingeye Ltd

Claimants Solicitors: None given

Date of issue – 11 Sept 2023

Date for AOS - 26 Sept 2023

Date to submit Defence - 13 Oct 2023

 

What is the claim for – 

1. Claim for monies outstanding from the Defendant in relation to a Parking Charge (reference xxxx/xxxx) issued on 27/05/2023. 

2. The signage clearly displayed throughout New Directions Holdings Main, Llanishen, Lambourne House, Lambourne Cres, Llanishen, Cardiff, CF14 5GL states that this is private land, managed by ParkingEye Ltd, and that it is subject to terms and conditions, including authorisation being required for parking, by which those who park agree to be bound (the contract). 

3. Parkingeye's ANPR system captured vehicle XXXX XXX entering and leaving the site on 23/05/2023, and parking without authorisation. 

4. Pursuant to Sch 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, notice has been given to the registered keeper, making them liable for the Parking Charge payable upon breach.

5. As no response was received, an alternative service address was obtained and further correspondence issued (CPR 6.9(3)).

 

What is the value of the claim?

Amount Claimed  £120

court fees  £35

legal rep fees  £50

Total Amount  £205

 

AOS is being submitted this morning and the CPR 31.14 request is being printed out and posted today.  Are we still going with the "bare bones denial" defence for now?

Cheers

CD

[honeybee13]

Yes, it's the standard defence from the sticky you got the claim form template from. 

Anything else you want to say goes in your witness statement (WS).

HB

[dx100uk]

defence is 13th oct.

thats a strange POC, is that all of it seems to be some missing too?

dx

 

[FTMDave]

HB is spot on.

There is just one slight difference.  PE are the one company that don't include Unicorn Food Tax.  However, recently they have thought up a different wheeze of claiming legal representative's costs although they are representing themselves.

Therefore keep the defence as is, except change (5) to -

(5)  The Claimant is abusing the court process by claiming legal representative's costs.  The Claimant has no legal representative and is representing themselves.

Just to be super sure.  The two boxes on the upper left-hand side.  They both have PE's name, right?  No solicitor?

[Cardiff Devil]

Hi DX and Dave

DX - Yes, that is the entirety of the POC, word for word.

 

Dave - Correct, the addresses given are both ParkingEye.  The addresses themselves are slightly different but are blatently the same place.

Claimant is;

ParkingEye Ltd, 40 Eaton Avenue, Matrix Business Park, Buckshaw Village, Chorley, PR7 7NA

The second address given (for sending documents) is;

ParkingEye Ltd, 38-40 Eaton Avenue, Buckshaw Village, Chorley, PR7 7NA

Edited to add rather than submit a second post. 

Could I leave #5 as it is because the original PCN amount was £100, and the amount being claimed before fees is £120, with no explanation for this (admittedly small by PPC standards) extra charge? 

Then add the legal representative unicorn feed tax as #6 and renumber the existing #6 to #7?

[FTMDave]

Is it possible that that £20 is interest?

Is it exactly £20 or something like £20.19?

Do they mention interest anywhere?

[Nicky Boy]

The 20 quid appeared in the LBC further up thread. They apparently added it for sending out the LBC as part of their "recovery costs". 

[FTMDave]

Well spotted CD and NB!

Then yes, the defence should be -

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.

3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.   

4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 

6.  The Claimant is further abusing the court process by claiming legal representative's costs.  The Claimant has no legal representative and is representing themselves.

7.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

 

[Cardiff Devil]

Perfect.  Cheers as always Dave. 

[Cardiff Devil]

Hi guys

To my surprise PE have responded to the CPR 31:14 request with a copy of a heavily redacted contract with who I presume to be the managing agents of the premises in question.  Attached here for your perusal.

 

Cheers

CD

 

Claimants CPR Response.pdf

[FTMDave]

Very interesting!  That's my evening reading sorted for when I finish work.

I see for a start they have redacted the grace period.

[Cardiff Devil]

Yep, that was the first thing I noticed, plus the "consideration period".  As this was a sub 10 minute "stay" I can see that being something extremely relevant to bring up if it goes as far as a hearing.

I'm not sure if the other party on the contract was the landowner or just a managing agent.  I presume I can do a land registry search to find that out.

[FTMDave]

The PPCs sometimes redact how much they are charging the client, for example, but there is no reason, zilch, for redacting the consideration and grace periods save for wanting to hide information that would scupper their case.

I can see them bottling before court and indeed you having a GDPR claim, but best of course to plan for the worst.

This one company c/o another company looks dodgy too.

Forum regular LFI is an expert with contracts and I'm sure will note more.

 

[Cardiff Devil]

Cheers Dave.  I suspected as much.  

Would I have any grounds under the civil procedure rules to demand sight of a copy of the contract with that information unredacted?  I suppose even if I wrote back to them requesting that information and they refused, it wouldn't look particularly good on them if it did get as far as a hearing.  If I was going to make a claim under GDPR would that be a new claim or could I file a counter-claim under this existing one?

New Directions Holdings are the company that occupies the building, I can only presume that Ty Glas Management is some kind of managing agent and not the building owner.  This further fists their case if it's true as they likely have no locus standi to bring this court claim in their own name.

[Nicky Boy]

I'd leave the contract as is, it's in your favour!

 

The advice is usually NOT to counterclaim.

Not sure of the reasons, but when one of the other regulars answers... we'll both learn something!

[AndyOrch]

42 minutes ago, Cardiff Devil said:

If I was going to make a claim under GDPR would that be a new claim or could I file a counter-claim under this existing one?

A separate claim ...Part20 counter claims are for when you have suffered monetary loss in connection to the claim. In this instance you are wanting disclosure as evidence in support of the claimant's claim.

Disclosure is covered under CPR 31 unfortunately this does not cover Small claim Track claims as disclosure is decided by the court in its directions.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31

Sooooo the way around this is to state in your initial defence that the claimant is put to strict to provide and disclose evidence etc etc and then reinforce this in further detail within your witness statement.

The court should then impose within its directions that the original documents are served which the claimant relies upon in support of its claim.

 

Andy

[FTMDave]

If I've understood the forum policy correctly, the advice to not counterclaim is because a fair proportion of claims the PPCs bring are absolutely hopeless and they have no real intention of putting them before a judge.

However, they issue the claims anyway in the hope that the motorist will be terrified of the idea of court when the claim form turns up, and will give in and pay.  After all, it's worth a shot for them, a roboclaim only costs them £35.

When the motorist does fight back though they discontinue before the court date.  Sure, they lose £35, but presumably lots of other mugs are paying and indeed paying £70 Unicorn Food Tax on top.

But if there is a counterclaim, then there is a huge disincentive for the PPC to discontinue the case, as the counterclaim would continue.

So the conclusion is that it's best to keep the two separate.  Firstly beat the PPC's case.  Then later go after them for GDPR or similar.

[AndyOrch]

42 minutes ago, Andyorch said:

Part20 counter claims are for when you have suffered monetary loss in connection to the claim.

You can never have suffered monetary loss on a speculative parking claim 

[Cardiff Devil]

So the advice for the time being is not challenge the "consideration period" being redacted on the contract, and wait and see what PE decide to do?

If they crack on with the case, bring it up in the witness statement, and if they bottle out before the hearing, submit a claim under GDPR?

[AndyOrch]

Correct, although I'm not convinced a separate claim under GDPR is the way forward if they were to Discontinue. Providing the defence/statement is applied and considered correctly  and if the Judge disregards or does not even consider your witness statement as we have had in a couple of claims recently then ask him why not ? speak up as its due process within the Legal Judicial system that all statements are considered.

[FTMDave]

Just chucking a vague idea out there.

How about writing to Ty Glas Management Ltd, saying you had business with New Directions Holdings Ltd, but arrived just after they had closed.  You therefore drove away after just a few minutes.

You have received a £100 parking charge from PE and you would like to know how long the consideration and grace periods are that are mentioned in the contract, as PE are hiding these from you.

They might be daft enough to let on.

As I say, just an idea.

 

[Cardiff Devil]

That might indeed be worth a try.  I've checked them out on Companies House and they have a single director, no other current significant staff listed.  Just checked their accounts and they're basically a dormant company.

The one bit that did pique my interest was, under Nature of Business (SIC) it states; 

• 68320 - Management of real estate on a fee or contract basis

So that pretty much confirms my suspicions that they're just some kind of managing agent and not the actual landowner, meaning that the contract they provided wasn't really worth the paper it was printed on.  Doesn't explain how their accounts are basically dormant.

They don't have a website that I can see or any kind of contact details posted online but I'll keep looking and see what I can turn up.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Cardiff Devil

[Nicky Boy]

Also begs the question... Can you have a contract with a dormant company?

[brassnecked]

Yes how can a dormant Company act of or satisfy a contract?