Ace Security Roboclaim: Residential site

This was a case where there was no intent to create legal relations. The Keeper had maintained all along that there was no obligation to get a permit, never mind display one. Ace Parking (also known as Pace Recovery and Storage) thought they could force themselves on the Keeper/Resident and then charge him. They were wrong.

There were about 25 parking charges in total but some were cancelled due to poor signage. You can't contract without the proper signs so it can down to 11 parking charges over 5 or 6 claims (an abuse of the court process) but heard as 1 claim. They lost. The judge agreed that a rental agreement cannot be changed simply because a KDEC puts up a sign.

Pace Security Roboclaim

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [INSERT NAME] CLAIM NO: xxxxxxxx

PACE RECOVERY & STORAGE LIMITED
CLAIMANT

AND

[INSERT NAME]
DEFENDANT

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED [INSERT DATE]

[Editor Note: Ace Parking had to replead their case]

PARTIES

1. The Claimant is a Parking Operator managing the Land at [Insert Location] (”the Land”).

2. The Defendant was at all material times the driver or alternatively the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 of registration number [Insert VRM] (”the Vehicle”).

[Editor Note: One of the first things to challenge is who are they making the claim against. If they have no proof of the driver, then the claim should be against the Keeper and only on the basis of their meeting the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act]

THE CONTRACT / CHARGE

1. The Claimant installed signs (i.e. the ”Contract”) on the Land that set out its terms of parking. A copy of the Contract is attached to these Particulars of Claim marked 'Document 1'.

[Editor Note: In this case, half of the parking charges had to be cancelled as the signs were clearly legal nonsense though Pace had been charged for advice in producing these nonsense signs. We believe the term is "Gladstoned".]

2. The Contract contained the following express terms:

Vehicles must display a valid permit prominently, comply with any conditions on that permit and park wholly within the parking bay.

The driver, by breaching any of the above Terms and Conditions while parking or remaining on this land, accepts liability for a Charge of £100 payable within 28 days of issue.

Failure to pay the Charge within 28 days of issue may result in... passing the debt to solicitors which may incur additional costs for which you will be liable to pay.

[Editor Note: A clear example of signs being meaningless if you cannot offer parking to someone (a resident) who already has parking. There is no consideration]

3. The Claimant entered into a contract with the driver of the Vehicle on [Insert Date]. Through the act of parking without displaying a valid permit the Defendant accepted these terms and as such entered into the Contract. The Defendant is pursued as the driver or alternatively as the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

[Editor Note: Valid smallid ... if you don't need a permit, validity doesn't come into it. See 2 above]

4. As a result of the above, the Defendant was (pursuant to the Contract) issued with a Parking Charge Notice on [Insert Date]. The Defendant was obliged to pay the sum of £100 within 28 days of issue. The sum of £100.00 is an agreed core price.

[Editor Note: Except it wasn't]

THE BREACH

5. In breach of the Contract, the Defendant failed to pay the sum of £100.00 within 28 days or indeed at all. As a result of the non-payment the Claimant obtained the Registered Keeper (i.e. the Defendants’ details) from the DVLA and consequently expended time and material pursuing the debt.

[Editor Note: If you expend time in chasing your own mistake, don't expect to get paid for your stupidity]

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

[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]

PARTICULARS OF LOSS

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

CLAIM FOR INTEREST

8. Further, the Claimant claims interest under 5.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% from the date of 28 days after the 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

9. The Claimant claims costs on contractual (indemnity) basis, pursuant to CPR 44.5, as the contract states ”Enforcement action may incur additional costs that will be added to the value of the parking charge”.

[Editor Note: They make it up as the go along]

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:

(1) The sum of £100.00 as a debt;
(2) Damages for the Defendant’s breach of contract in the sum of £50.00, as set out above;
(3) Statutory interest, as set out above; and
(4) Costs on a contractual (indemnity) basis pursuant to CPR 44.5, together with the fixed fees and costs of issuing.

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:
Signed:

Have more questions? Submit a request

0 Comments

Please sign in to leave a comment.
Powered by Zendesk