PCN (NW) LTD County Court Claim form

zzzLazyDaisy

dpc036 wrote: »

This post by lazydaisy suggests making a application to the court when PCN ignore/refuse to send copies of the documents. Is that something anyone can help with the wording on?

That post also makes it clear that a request for disclosure of documents comes later in the proceedings.

FIRST YOU MUST FILE YOUR DEFENCE.

If you miss the deadline for filing your defence, the parking company can enter judgment in default against you, and you will have to either pay up or get a CCJ on your credit record.

Deal with your defence, nothing else matters at this stage.

Coupon-mad

So a point to add to the defence bullet points you are putting together would be:

''The defendant refutes that there is sufficient, clear or BPA compliant signage at this site. There is an old illegal wheel-clamping threat and reference to 'disc-holders in college opening hours' but the vehicle was invoiced outside if this time so there is no cause of action and no contract formed with the driver which could result in a charge.''

...and misterman's thread is worth you revisiting (along with ALL the other ones linked on Jimmy Shand's thread):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4733635

Your cases are so similar that you should learn from each other's defence points and keep looking at all the PCN(NW) threads every few days.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

I've now recieved the Ops details and will deal with it off forum from now of.

dpc036

My defence has been submitted, thanks to kirkbyinfurnesslad for his help with that, and everyone else who has commented here. There is a copy of the defence doc below.

I have had a letter from the court stating PCN have 28 days to tell the court they wish to proceed. I have requested a copy of the contract between PCN and the college but as expected havent received one. How do i go about asking the court to order them to provide me with one?

Is there anything else i should be doing at this stage?

Claim No. ###


Claimant

--vs--


Defendant

___________________________________________


I am being pursued for a parking charge by PCN (NW) Ltd. I confirm I am the registered keeper but I was not the driver at the material date/time.
Please note that my ability to prepare a defence has been restricted by the failure of the claimant’s solicitors to supply me with information requested under the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.
I deny all charges for the following reasons.
1. The claimant has no cause of action against the defendant:
a) The claimant has not provided any evidence that a parking offence has taken place.
b) The claimant is not invoking schedule 4 of the PoFA so must pursue the driver. The defendant was not the driver at the material time and therefore there was no contract. I therefore request that the claim be struck out.
c) The claimant is claiming breach of contract. The defendant was not the driver at the material time and therefore there was no contract.
d) The claimant states the terms and conditions were clearly displayed in prominent places throughout the site. I have seen no evidence that such terms and conditions were in place on the date of the alleged incident.
e) There are currently two different companies listed on the signage. Therefore, if the driver is forming a contract it is unclear who they are forming it with.
f) The claimant has not established they have the rights from the landowner to charge money for parking, and to pursue charges to court.
g) If the charge is supposed to be a penalty for “breach of contract” the penalty of £160 is an unenforceable penalty clause. Following Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge and Co Ltd [1915], clauses designed to punish a party for breach of contract may only be upheld if they represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
h) The initial charge of £160 is a penalty, not a genuine pre-estimate of loss since the claimant is not the landowner and has suffered no loss. The demand for £160 is therefore punitive and unreasonable in breach of the BPA Code of Practice (para 19.5)

i) On 9th October 2013 GPB solicitors were closed down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/solicitor-check/560888.page
j) On 9th October 2013 the solicitor named on the court papers as 'Roy George' also had his licence to practice suspended by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/solicitor-check/417588.page
It is therefore the defendant's case that the claimant has no cause of action against the defendant and the defendant respectfully requests the court to list this matter for a Preliminary Hearing to consider the defendant's application to strike out the claimant's claim on this basis.
2. The claimant has no legal standing (locus standi) to pursue court action against the defendant
a) The claimant has neither claimed nor shown any proprietorial interest in the land in question
b) The claimant is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and must comply with the BPA Code of Practice which expressly provides, at paragraph 7, that if the claimant does not own the land it must have a written agreement with the landowner or its agent with specific content which includes authority from the landowner to pursue outstanding parking charges through the courts if necessary
c) If the defendant is liable under POFA as the registered keeper (which is not admitted) then it is the defendant's case that the claimant has no authority to act as agent on behalf of the landowner in pursuing these proceedings and the claimant is put to strict proof of the same
It is therefore the defendant's case that the claimant has no legal standing to bring these proceedings against the defendant and the defendant respectfully requests the court to list this matter for a Preliminary Hearing to consider the defendant's application to strike out the claimant's claim on this basis.

Coupon-mad

Complain to the college.

Also write to PCN(NW) and rattle their cage that they have no prospect of success so may as well cancel this.

And complain to the BPA about non-compliance with POFA 2012.

(sorry if you have already done so - your thread is too big to clearly read due to the pictures!).

dpc036

So according to MCOL my defence was received on the 25/10 and as i understand it the claimant had 28 days to follow it up, is that right?

Although i received a letter from a new solicitors dated the 11/11 stating the claimant will be proceeding i haven't heard anything else.

Would i be wrong to assume this has come to an end?

salmosalaris

Ring the court , ask if it has been stayed

4consumerrights

dpc036 wrote: »

So according to MCOL my defence was received on the 25/10 and as i understand it the claimant had 28 days to follow it up, is that right?

Although i received a letter from a new solicitors dated the 11/11 stating the claimant will be proceeding i haven't heard anything else.

Would i be wrong to assume this has come to an end?

The new solicitors didn't happen to be Gladstones did they?

I wonder if the fact no further proceedings have been notified has anything to do with PCN (NW) leaving the BPA for the IPC on 1/12/12 considering the defence (nicely advised by KIFL) incorporated a lot of breaches of the BPA COP.

It would be interesting to know why they left the BPA ..... considering the breaches of COP this company does and that it is a small PPC. (A couple of PPCs already have 10 unexpired sanction points).

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Yes it's gladstones

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

dpc036 wrote: »

So according to MCOL my defence was received on the 25/10 and as i understand it the claimant had 28 days to follow it up, is that right?

Although i received a letter from a new solicitors dated the 11/11 stating the claimant will be proceeding i haven't heard anything else.

Would i be wrong to assume this has come to an end?

Yes you would be wrong to assume that.

It just takes time. Unless you are advised it's over by the court/claimaint