Parking Control Management Roboclaim: Residential site

This claim was for a residential site next to a Sainsburys store. It became a PCM "hotspot" as PCM failed to (deliberately or otherwise) mark out the separate residential area. People visiting the store would not know in which part to park, so often ended up with a PCM parking charge. Sainsburys ended up painting the road to show the demarcation, something PCM failed to do, as it would have meant not being able to issue parking charges.

And despite claiming the signs were clear, two judges in two separate cases said they were not. So check all your photos with this company.

ROBOCLAIM PARTICULARS

IN THE [INSERT NAME] COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO: xxxxxxx

PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LIMITED
CLAIMANT

AND

[INSERT NAME]
DEFENDANT

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

PARTIES

1. The Claimant is a Parking Operator managing the Land at [Insert Location] ('the Land’). The Defendant was at all material times the Registered Keeper and Driver of registration number [Insert VRM] (“the Vehicle’).

THE CONTRACT

2. The Claimant entered into a contract with the driver of the Vehicle on [Insert date] ('the Contract‘). The Defendant is pursued as the driver, or alternatively the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

[Editors Note: This is not actually true as PCM paperwork fails to meet the requirements to hold a Keeper liable so check your paperwork and be able to show why it fails. A DVLA check also helps.]

3. The Claimant installed signs (i.e. the 'Contract‘) on the Land that set out its terms of parking and through the act of parking without displaying a valid parking permit the Defendant accepted these terms and as such entered into the Contract. A copy of the Contract is attached to these Particulars of Claim marked ‘Document 1’.

4. The Contract contained the following express terms:

Parking is permitted for: vehicles parked with a valid resident parking permit fully displayed within the windscreen when parked wholly within the confines of a numbered or lettered bay corresponding to the permit displayed.

By parking or remaining at this site otherwise than in accordance with the above, you, agree to pay consideration in the form of a parking charge in the sum of £100 to be paid within 28 days of issue.

Enforcement action may incur additional costs that will be added to the value of the parking charge.

[Editors Note: PCM have a real issue with signs and often make claims about signs that were not there or were placed after the event. So get your own photos and get copies of theirs too. The signs also fail the "clarity" test set out in the ParkingEye v Beavis test.]


5. The Defendant was obliged to pay the sum of £100 within 28 days of issue of the charge.

6. As a result of the above, the Claimant obtained the Registered Keeper i.e. the Defendant’s details from the DVLA. The parking charge notice was sent by post, dated [Insert date]. A Notice to Keeper was also sent by post, dated [Insert date].

THE BREACH

7. In breach of the Contract, the Defendant failed to pay the sum of £100.00 within 28 days or indeed at all and consequently the Claimant expended time and material pursuing the debt.

8. In respect of the above the Claimant claims the sum of £50.00 damages as a pre-determined and nominal contribution to its actual losses.

PARTICULARS OF LOSS

9. The Claimant claims £100.00 as a debt and £50.00 damages.

CLAIM FOR INTEREST

10. Further, the Claimant claims interest under the County Courts Act 1969 at a rate of 8% from the date of 28 days after charge until the date of issue of this claim [Insert date] and continuing at a rate of £0.03 per day until judgment or earlier payment or alternatively at such rate that the Court thinks fit.

CLAIM FOR COSTS

11. The Claimant claims costs on an indemnity basis pursuant to its contractual right in the Contract that states "Enforcement action may incur additional costs that will be added to the value of the parking charge”.

[Editor Note: The main challenge is to the £50 they have added on for "costs" already. Get them to prove that the £50 has been incurred and not just double charging for "legal" service i.e. sending out a template Roboclaim. See ParkingEye v Somerfield at para #419]

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:

(1) The sum of £100.00 as a debt,
(2) Statutory interest as set out above,
(3) Further, damages for the Defendant’s breach of contract in the sum of £50 as set out above,
(4) Costs on an indemnity basis as set out above (together with the fixed costs of issue and any Court fees).

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. I am duly authorised by the Claimant to sign this statement.

Full Name:
Date:

 

Have more questions? Submit a request

0 Comments

Please sign in to leave a comment.
Powered by Zendesk