Claim Form Received

Redx

even if it was, you cannot find out until tuesday !!

its not as if the Northampton Bulk Centre are going to come on here and advise you on a sunday, or tomorrow either , its a government department and I am sure their published hours for contact will be available somewhere

Coupon-mad

Snellosaurus wrote: »

Thank you for the signposting, Redx - I was getting lost before you highlighted where to look.

Another question if anyone knows about this: I logged into Moneyclaim.gov.uk earlier this morning, and used the info on the claim form to look at the system. It timed out, and now when I try to log back in it says the details are incorrect. Could it be that they've 'cancelled' it in the last hour? If it were a working day, I'd call the court number listed but as it's bank holiday tomorrow, I'd love it if someone could shed some light on this earlier.

Anyone experienced this before?

The claim will not suddenly have been cancelled. Show us your defence based on others you read on here and on pepipoo forum.

Snellosaurus

Hi Coupon-mad. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Here's my defence so far. Thoughts and tips would be greatly appreciated. I've cribbed some where I think it's applicable. I've not mentioned the driver being unknown because, as a result of going off without knowing what we were doing initially (and thinking we were dealing with a reasonable company, not knowing what a palaver it all was), we gave that information up in the very first appeal. Doing my best to sort it out now.

1.
I am the defendant,

---

DOB

---

residing at

---

2.
The defendant denies any liability to the Claimant whatsoever on the following basis:
a)Insufficient signage: The driver 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.

b) There were no entrance signs at all to show that the driver 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 the driver to see whilst in the vehicle, meaning it is not obvious to the motorist. The 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 permits being necessary and then referring to the smaller text signs for further details.

d) The signage was insufficient and illegible, meaning that the driver did not enter into any agreement about pulling over on the private road.

e) The Claimant did not comply with the IPC code of practice (Part 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. The driver 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 the driver in person that they needed to move the car, but failed to do so.

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

3.
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.

Snellosaurus

Is it worth highlighting in this that they submitted false evidence in the IAS appeal, as well? I'm a little confused about what goes where at the moment.

pappa_golf

Snellosaurus wrote: »

Is it worth highlighting in this that they submitted false evidence in the IAS appeal, as well? I'm a little confused about what goes where at the moment.

as a point of law ,, no , but to ridicule them in front of the judge ,, yes

Snellosaurus

Here is my part 18 request draft. I've taken bits from other forums and examples in a way that I think best suits this case. Thoughts would be appreciated.

---

Dear [PPC / solicitors. I will send to both as per advice on here]

[FONT=&quot]Regarding the above PCN and claim form, it is necessary to ask for more information regarding a purported debt to yourselves.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. Please identify the landowner.

2. Please confirm that the Claimant can demonstrate a clear chain of authority from the landowner either by way of a written authority contract, deed or lease.
a). That this/these document(s) is/are in the Claimant’s possession or if not when they will be.
b). That such document(s) are available for inspection and if not when they will be.
c). That copies of the document(s) can be provided and that the originals will be available at court.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]3. What is the basis of the claimants claim?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) An agreed contract?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](b) A breach of contract?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](c) Trespass?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. If 3.a or 3.b, what is the claimant’s legal capacity to offer parking at the location? How is that supposed contract created; by sign, by permit or by some other means?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5. If 4.c what is the claimant’s legal capacity if not the land-owner or lessee?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6. If it is the Claimant’s case that their claim is based in contract and that such a contract was conveyed by way of signs displayed at the location please confirm the following:
a). That the Claimant is able to produce a copy of all the various signs at the location as they were on the date the PCN was issued, indicating the various text point sizes together with a map or plan showing where they are deployed on site.
b). A schedule of works/maintenance showing how and when such signs on-site were repaired, replaced and cleaned etc.

7. Please confirm whether it is the Claimant’s intention to adduce photographs and or video footage of the relevant event and:
a). That such photographs and/or footage is in the Claimant’s possession and if not when it will be?
b). That such photographs and/or footage are available for inspection and if not when they will be?
c). That copies of the photographs and/or footage can be provided and that all the originals will be available at court.

8. Please confirm that the Claimant has in his possession an analysis of the costs incurred that form the additional charges included in the claim and:
a). That copies of such an analysis and other attendant documents upon which the analysis is based are available for inspection and if not when they will be?
b). That copies can be provided of the analysis and attendant documents and that all original documents upon which the Claimant might seek to rely on in this respect will be available at court.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I would like to take this opportunity to offer using an independent arbitration on condition that the ADR service meets the criteria laid down in Schedule 3 of The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015. Please note that the IAS does not meet these criteria.

TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER THE ABOVE REQUEST WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THE SAME UPON YOU. SERVICE WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN EFFECTED ON THE SECOND BUSINESS DAY AFTER POSTING.[/FONT]

---

With this, I'm not sure whether I should/ need to ask for more information that would highlight that the driver was in the vehicle the whole time and they only have evidence of an occupied vehicle being stationary for 27 seconds.

Coupon-mad

I haven't looked at the defence in depth yet but I suspect it needs more work, looks a bit sparse IMHO, but, yes, you should indeed include reference to false evidence being submitted to the IAS. And state this:

it was issued on a very poorly signed private road that the driver had no awareness of being private. Driver was sat in the car waiting when someone slapped a PCN on the windscreen whilst driver was still in the car.

And if the driver was you (the Defendant) and is clearly identified in the photos, then admit to being the driver in the defence. This is because you need to be honest where the evidence would otherwise show you as possibly disingenuous, if you defend 'as keeper' hen rock up at the court hearing as very clearly the same person as was sat in the car...you want the Judge on your side throughout.

In the Particulars of the Claim section, it simply lists the PCN number, car reg and date. It then breaks down the costs, quoting the County Courts Act 1984 to explain the interest it is putting on the fee. From what I've read elsewhere, I think there should be much more detail in this for me to respond to - is that correct?

Yes.

You may as well send the Part 18 request asap, Tuesday by 1st class post to both Armtrac and their solicitors (keeping free 'certs of posting' receipts from the PO Counter - NOT RECORDED NOR SPECIAL DELIVERY!). As long as each question is reasonable and not something you already know, then send it. Remember, a part 18 request should not be 'questions for the sake of questions' so keep it concise and on point.

If they do not reply then you can adduce in the defence, that they have not supplied adequate information about the parking event, the contract (signs) they allege was breached, details of the alleged 'contravention' why they consider a charge is payable, why they consider you the liable party, nor any specific particulars or cause of action.

Is this a Gladstones claim?

Snellosaurus

Thank you, Coupon-mad. I really appreciate your time in looking at this. I'll pad out the defence and make it more thorough. I will double check the Part 18 request and get it sent off on Tuesday.

Yes, it is a Gladstones claim.

Snellosaurus

As it is known who the driver is, should it be worded in the first person? I have only seen them worded in the third person, but this might be because people are not saying who the driver was. I will make some changes and then post up my second go later...

Coupon-mad

Yes I reckon so, make it honest from the driver; others you see are written more cagily just because the driver has nor been identified.