Help! Court Claim from PCN-UK

biscuitdunker

Having looked at that PCN-UK sign, you could probably argue that due to the terrible use of the English language, you were unable to decipher quite what it meant. Dear lord. It's been a long time since I've seen something so incredibly cringe worthy.

AlphaRomeo_2

trisontana wrote: »

One thing I have just noticed that document has not be signed, unless you have deleted that part?

Thanks again. I have deleted that part of the document. I have also deleted all the names and bar codes. I suppose that the claim form was submitted & signed electronically (there was no proper signature, but just a type-written name in that space). The form is real though- I have checked it through the moneyclaim (The website for the claims procedure) website today.

bargepole

The Defendant denies any liability for the amount claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1) Any liability for private parking charges can only be based on an implied contract entered into by the driver when parking. No contract is asserted in the particulars of claim, therefore there is no basis for the action. It is not up to the Court to read between the lines and imply a cause of action, when the claimant has failed to do so.

2) Even if a contract can be proven, the amount claimed is far in excess of the losses suffered by the private parking company as agent of the landowner, which is the amount recoverable in damages under contract law. The amount claimed by the Claimant can not reasonably be deemed to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and is therefore an unlawful penalty.

3) The Claimant has provided no evidence of any contractual ownership of, or interest in, the land in question, and asserts no authority to act on behalf of the landowner with regard to remedy for trespass.

In light of the above, the Defendant asserts that this claim has no realistic prospect of success, and requests that the claim be struck out.

AlphaRomeo_2

biscuitdunker wrote: »

My goodness, there is literally NO GRAMMAR in that collection of jabbering nonsense.

Are you also posting this on pepipoo?

Thanks for advice-I will be doing it before today.

biscuitdunker

The sign states:

"Failure to pay your fixed penalty notice within 14 days will result in your details being requested from the DVLA and our debt collections company will take action against the registered owner of the vehicle"

Is this legal? Since it's not the registered owner, but the driver who is part of the implied contract, surely it cannot be right that they can threaten to take action against the registered owner?

AlphaRomeo_2

peter_the_piper wrote: »

What no claim number? Or have you removed it?

Yes, I have removed the the claim number and all other details.

trisontana

AlphaRomeo wrote: »

Thanks for advice-I will be doing it before today.

I have just posted an image of that claim form onto the Pepipoo thread I had started about this PPC a couple of weeks ago. I hope you don't mind.

AlphaRomeo_2

trisontana wrote: »

I have just posted an image of that claim form onto the Pepipoo thread I had started about this PPC a couple of weeks ago. I hope you don't mind.

No problem- glad to help!

bargepole

bargepole wrote: »

The Defendant denies any liability for the amount claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1) Any liability for private parking charges can only be based on an implied contract entered into by the driver when parking. No contract is asserted in the particulars of claim, therefore there is no basis for the action. It is not up to the Court to read between the lines and imply a cause of action, when the claimant has failed to do so.

2) Even if a contract can be proven, the amount claimed is far in excess of the losses suffered by the private parking company as agent of the landowner, which is the amount recoverable in damages under contract law. The amount claimed by the Claimant can not reasonably be deemed to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and is therefore an unlawful penalty.

3) The Claimant has provided no evidence of any contractual ownership of, or interest in, the land in question, and asserts no authority to act on behalf of the landowner with regard to remedy for trespass.

In light of the above, the Defendant asserts that this claim has no realistic prospect of success, and requests that the claim be struck out.

I meant to add - the above is a draft of what to put on your defence form - N9B I think it's called. You can do that online.

It will then go back to the PPC to file an allocation questionnaire, and that means they have to pay a further fee to continue with the claim. I bet they don't, they were probably hoping for an undefended win by default.

trisontana

biscuitdunker wrote: »

Having looked at that PCN-UK sign, you could probably argue that due to the terrible use of the English language, you were unable to decipher quite what it meant. Dear lord. It's been a long time since I've seen something so incredibly cringe worthy.

I have just transcribed that sign and it reads thus:-

Parking is free whilst in premises only if you leave site or the vehicle is not in designated parking space will result in your vehicle being immobilized and damages of £125 per day or issued with a PCN parking ticket


There is no punctuation at all as far as I can see.