Summoned to small claims court

Redx

I am going to suggest the OP read this recent one https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5375768 to gain inspiration and some legal wordings for his own defence

the OP needs to realise a lot of it wont apply in his case, but certain aspects WILL apply, or can be used in order to fine tune his defence , especially any Beavis wordings , NTK stuff , signage , no locus standii etc

Half_way

hoohoo wrote: »

5. Its worth comparing the signage with the beavis signage.
Links charge is hidden in tiny writing, so fails the beavis test. This makes it a penalty and unfair consumer charge.

not only that but there's a world of difference between residential parking and the retail park where Barry Beavis was snagged.
first of all Parking eye were/are paying the landowner a significant sum for a fishing licence to entrap motorists.
A retail park where they want a high turnover of vehicles is something completely different to a residential parking area
and so on

Marktheshark

The most common mistake made in many parking defences is admitting the car was parked where they say it was.
When you do this you jump at least the first 3 major hurdles they have to get over.
The onus must always be upon them to prove everything they claim.

Guys_Dad

In your opening post you wrote "The background is that I was parking at residential visitor parking near my home. Unknown to me, you needed a visitor parking sticker to park here."

That reads to me as if you shouldn't have parked there at all. If that is the case, then you might have a different defence of trespass. You need to prepare for that question being asked.

I do think if it is the case, it swings in the PPC's favour via Beavis. The reason is that in Beavis, the PPC had a genuine interest in protecting the landowner/retail outlets benefit by allowing for a turnover of vehicles with paying customers and not being bedblocked.

In the case of an estate with limited visitor parking, although the residents are not carrying on a business, their visitors need a place to park and it could be argued that you were denying them that right. So you would need a suitable counter argument.

But if you have a right to park there, then ignore the previous arguments.

nigelbb

Guys_Dad wrote: »

In your opening post you wrote "The background is that I was parking at residential visitor parking near my home. Unknown to me, you needed a visitor parking sticker to park here."

That reads to me as if you shouldn't have parked there at all. If that is the case, then you might have a different defence of trespass. You need to prepare for that question being asked.

I do think if it is the case, it swings in the PPC's favour via Beavis. The reason is that in Beavis, the PPC had a genuine interest in protecting the landowner/retail outlets benefit by allowing for a turnover of vehicles with paying customers and not being bedblocked.

In the case of an estate with limited visitor parking, although the residents are not carrying on a business, their visitors need a place to park and it could be argued that you were denying them that right. So you would need a suitable counter argument.

But if you have a right to park there, then ignore the previous arguments.

If a permit is required then the OP was a trespasser & could not have entered into a contract for parking as there was no offer of parking to non-permit holders. This is utterly different to Beavis where it was accepted that there was a contract. In the case of trespass only the occupier of the land may sue for damages not a 3rd-party PPC e.g. Ransomes Europark sued motorists not Proserve

The_Deep

It is impossible to know who the driver was and I can prove this in court.


How can to prove the impossible?

Guys_Dad

I did write "That reads to me as if you shouldn't have parked there at all. If that is the case, then you might have a different defence of trespass. You need to prepare for that question being asked." so I was aware.

POFA does acknowledge that a charge can be made as a result of trespass. Whereas I agree that the landowner may have a right to sue for trespass, I see nowhere under any laws of agency that a contracted 3rd party has no right to pursue this on behalf of the landowner.

If you read paragraph 28 of the Beavis judgement, you will see how the Supreme court viewed trespass.

nigelbb

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I did write "That reads to me as if you shouldn't have parked there at all. If that is the case, then you might have a different defence of trespass. You need to prepare for that question being asked." so I was aware.

POFA does acknowledge that a charge can be made as a result of trespass. Whereas I agree that the landowner may have a right to sue for trespass, I see nowhere under any laws of agency that a contracted 3rd party has no right to pursue this on behalf of the landowner.

There is no contract & they are not legally qualified so they cannot sue an errant motorist on behalf of the occupier of the land. They can pursue on behalf of the occupier but only in the same way that a debt collector can pursue i.e. do nothing except write letters.

Davidtomdavid

Thanks all for advice so far. Day in court this week.

My evidence consisted of copies of NTKs, copy of POFA and copy of Beavis ruling.

In PPC witness statement they admit only 3 PCNs can be pursued to myself as keeper due to POFA but they have the right to assume I am the driver? Is this the case? How do i counter this?

Also, from their evidence, one of the photos merely displays the windscreen with the tax disk (therefore number plate) and the PCN stuck to windscreen. Is this insufficient evidence to show where the car was parked at that time?

Finally, two of the PCNs were issued 24 hours apart. The two photos show the vehicle parked in exactly the same spot. Somehow 2 PCNs have been issued for the same period of parking (it's residential so not unreasonable to be parked for 24 hours or more). Is there any legislation I should point the court to denonstrate that 2 PCNs cannot be issued for one period of parking??

The_Deep

for a start, its not a summons because its a civil matter in a civil court, not ...


Any lexicographer will give you an argument on that.