Claim Form Received

Right on.

I have another question to ask about the content of the defence:

Do I call out the IAS appeals process as utterly corrupt? For example, name the Watchdog programme that highlighted it and reference some of the points made by parking prankster?

Do I quote all the swearing the parking operative aimed at the driver, and his offers of a fight around the back of a building? ["No. Move your !!!!ing car right now. Move your !!!!ing car. People here think they can do whatever the !!!! they want to do....you an me, round there now"] all taking place outside a primary school with children outside.

I want to write that in because it's what happened and I feel like shaming them for his conduct, but I'm not sure if it's really relevant to the case.

Here's my next draft of the defence. Thank you all for all your tips so far - I'm so grateful for your help. Any further tips would be amazing.

---

1.
I am the defendant,

---

2.
I deny any liability to the Claimant whatsoever on the following basis:
a)Insufficient signage: The PCN was issued on a poorly signed private road where I had pulled over. I was completely unaware that the road was private because of the insufficient signage. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice, Part E, highlighting that entrance signs are necessary – there were none, as I can evidence in photographs taken at the site

b) There were no entrance signs at all to highlight that I was entering private land.

c) In their evidence, Armtrac highlight signs next to where the car was pulled over. These signs are attached to heras fencing that encircles a building site, and it would be reasonable to assume they are making reference to the building site, rather than the road which is not marked as private. These signs are too high and the text too small for a driver to see whilst in the vehicle, meaning it is not obvious to the motorist. The IPC Code of Practice also gives an example of what the sign should look like. There was no such signage at the site. The example sign that was sent out by Armtrac in their evidence is not what was displayed at the site. There was no clear ‘P’ drawing attention to rules about parking, or permits being necessary and then referring to the smaller text signs for further details.

d) The signage was insufficient and illegible, meaning that I did not enter into any agreement about pulling over on the private road. The PCN was placed on the windscreen of an occupied car without any attempt to talk to me whilst I was sat in it to tell me I needed to move. When I asked the operative why they had issued a fine instead of asking me to move, he shouted and swore at me, outside a primary school, before suggesting we go for a fight around the back of a building. This breaches Part B, section 13.1 of the Code of Practice, referring to professionalism.

e) The Claimant did not comply with the Part B, section 15 of the Code of Practice regarding grace periods: The photographic evidence submitted by Armtrac are date and time stamped. It shows the vehicle at 14.54.37 from the rear. It then shows the vehicle from the front at 14.54.46. Finally it shows the vehicle at 14.55.04 with the PCN attached to the windscreen. I can clearly be seen in all three photographs. I refer to case Vehicle Services Ltd vs Ibbotson (2012) in which it is agreed that the claimant was responsible for mitigating the losses to the landowner. The parking operative had every opportunity to tell me in person that they needed to move the car, but failed to do so.

f) The Claimant has evidence of the vehicle stationary with me still inside it for 27 seconds. This does not constitute a grace period.

3.
The IAS is not considered an independent appeals system due to the Assessors' names remaining secret and well-publicised concerns over a conflict of interest. The IAS is a trading name of the IPC who are owned by the same people as the Claimant's Solicitors, Gladstones, who are now bringing this claim. Given this, I do not accept its dismissal of my appeal. Furthermore, Armtrac submitted false evidence that was accepted by this corrupt system without question.
a) The Claimant suggested in the IAS appeal that the reason there was not further photographic evidence of the parking contravention was that the driver got out of the vehicle and was abusing towards the parking operative. This is wholly untrue. As I have stated above, the parking operative contravened the IPC Code of Practice referring to professionalism when he shouted and swore at me, before suggesting a fight.
b) The IAS assessor took the claimant’s word against mine in all cases, without question. The assessor accepted the false evidence regarding my conduct, and disregarded my claim about the parking operative’s conduct. The assessor took mention of a body cam to suggest that the operative was wearing a uniform. He was not.
c) The photographic evidence of the rest of the site is date stamped several months before the event, and do not show what the site looked like the day the PCN was issued. I have photographs of the site that accurately show what the site looks like.

c) I am not willing to accept the decision of the IAS adjudicator who dismissed the appeal, for the reasons stated above.

4.
Misleading information during the appeals process
a) I misunderstood the appeals process initially, and was reluctant to give my details to Armtrac given the parking operative’s behaviour at the site. I stated that wanted to appeal via the ombudsman instead, not realising that this was not possible until the appeal had been lodged with Armtrac first. When an attempt to appeal through the IPC within the initial timeframe was made, the PCN was not recognised. I – erroneously – took this to mean that Armtrac had decided to uphold the complaint made about the parking operative and the PCN itself and cancel the charge. As such, the registered keeper was very surprised to receive the Notice to Keeper. I acknowledge fully that I began the appeals process incorrectly. However, Armtrac had an opportunity to correct this misunderstanding.
b) It would appear that Armtrac did not correct this misunderstanding because they felt this would strengthen their case to request payment because I misunderstood the appeals process and appealed incorrectly.

5.
The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.

---

Thanks, Coupon-mad for all the time I can see you spent looking at this for me. I notice you have taken out the part where I referred to their lack of clarity during the appeals process - do you think that's irrelevant in this instance? You've also taken out the reference I made to their false evidence where they state they had to leave the site because the driver was threatening violence towards them. Best to keep it out, or shall I pop it back in?

I'm going to pick through the Practice Directions to see if there's anything else I can add from there. That will also help me get the part 18 request right, as I think that needs another look at.

The Deep: I am just working out how to claim back expenses/time. I'm not sure at the moment whether it goes as a counter claim on the claim form, or if I go down the small claims route after the event. Any ideas?