HELP Vcs private land pcn derby

KeithP

loosegoose wrote: »

ok so I had my claim form arrive yesterday morning,

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

loosegoose

The car park I was parked in was for residents who lived in the flats, yes I assume with a permit you can use any of the parking spaces in the car park. I was making a delivery that day to a resident in the flats and was parked without a permit

loosegoose

the issue on the claim is june 4th

Coupon-mad

loosegoose wrote: »

The car park I was parked in was for residents who lived in the flats, yes I assume with a permit you can use any of the parking spaces in the car park. I was making a delivery that day to a resident in the flats and was parked without a permit

Then your defence is based on Jopson v Homeguard. You must read & understand that appeal case and why it is your persuasive exhibit for later. The transcript is online, on the parking prankster's website under 'case law'.

Search the forum for defence Jopson true and adapt the best one to suit.

KeithP

loosegoose wrote: »

the issue on the claim is june 4th

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th June, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th July 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

loosegoose

Thank you for your support

KeithP

Sorry, I made a mistake when calculating your Defence due date earlier.

I have corrected post #66 above.

loosegoose

Hi, so iv read the JOPSON V HOMEGUARD case as advised , iv been through some of the defences written in the newbies section,i have found a defence wirtten by coupon mad and think this is the most fitting to my case,i have removed some parts which were not relevant to my defence, would this defence be suitable to use ? Thanks.

9 PM

Defence:

1. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

2. The defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

2(i) the driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.

2(ii) There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4.

3. The signage displayed clearly only makes an 'offer of parking' to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders can be potentially bound by the contractual terms conveyed (and only if the terms were clear and prominent as adequate notice of the charge, which is denied). The only clear large lettering was 'NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING' and it is submitted that the presence of the vehicle was certainly not 'unauthorised'.



8. Loading or unloading with the permission of the landholder is not 'parking' and signs cannot override existing rights enjoyed by landowners and their visitors, as was found in the Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC at Oxford County Court, in a similar case number B9GF0A9E: 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES’ which also adduced a business car park decision, analogous to this present case.

8(i) In the Jopson appeal in June 2016, the Senior Circuit Judge found that the position was analogous to the right to unload which was the subject of Bulstrode v Lambert [1953] 2 All ER 728. The right of way in that case was: “To pass and re-pass with or without vehicles…for the purposes of obtaining access to the building…known as the auction mart.''

8(ii) In the Jopson appeal it was also held as a finding of fact, that stopping to unload was not 'parking'.

8(iii) In the Jopson appeal it was held that ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 had no application to a situation involving drivers with a right and expectation to be entitled to park under the grants flowing from a lease.

8(iv) In the Jopson appeal it was also held that signs added later by a third party parking firm are of no consequence to authorised visitors to premises where other rights prevail and supersede any alleged new 'parking contract’.


10. In any event, the signs make no offer to authorised visitors engaged in permitted loading/unloading for which no 'parking permit' was ever required (neither before the arrival of this Claimant onsite, nor after).

11. There is no clear mentioning of loading/unloading rules on the sign board. Photograph evidence of sign boards are available to be provided upon request.


16. The provision requiring payment of £160 is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to Regulation 5 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

15. This charge represents a breach of the well-known and well-established principle of promissory estoppel, i.e. that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration, when party A has made a promise to party B, who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment.

16. This charge represents a breach of the well-known and well-established principle that 'a grantor shall not derogate from his grant'. This rule embodies a general legal principle that, if A agrees to confer a benefit on B, then A should not do anything that substantially deprives B of the enjoyment of that benefit.

17. On the one hand the security/reception staff verbally allowed access and opened the gate, to enable loading/unloading on more than one occasion (the vehicle could not have entered without such express permission and this is proved by the very fact that the gate was opened to allow the entry of the vehicle). Landholders cannot allow or promise this on the one hand, then on the other hand, take away this permission or promise, in allowing a third party to disallow and/or seek to charge for the permitted action by a driver.

loosegoose

sorry ignore paragraph 17 that needs deleting

KeithP

loosegoose, feel free to edit your posts whenever you like.