County Court Letter

nosferatu1001

That unless you tell them - and you e been told NOT to ID the driver same as every thread - they cannot show that the person undertaking the contract at time A also parked again at time B.
No return clauses based in contract law have that inherent flaw.

Mirani

just convince the Judge that she is an honest witness who did move the car in between, so in fact there was no contravention of the 20 minutes allowed for each separate parking event.

I would defend this as driver, if I were your Mum. No point hiding who was driving, because PCM do serve Notice to Keeper letters and are sufficiently compliant with the POFA in their wording, IMHO.

Writing a defence as driver is more straightforward and means she needn't worry about any legalese or tying herself up in knots at the hearing - just say it as it was, and remind the judge that this means there was no contravention of terms. Assuming the sign doesn't say 'no return within...'

I do not think we could convince the Judge the car moved only to then claim that another person came to park it.

That unless you tell them - and you e been told NOT to ID the driver same as every thread - they cannot show that the person undertaking the contract at time A also parked again at time B.
No return clauses based in contract law have that inherent flaw.

or did you mean to go back to arguing against the terms again

Coupon-mad

Mirani wrote: »

We went to check the sign again today and it did say no return within 1 hour

OK but that's for them to show, not you. PCM claims are shaky at best.

It would be for PCM (not your Mum) to show that the sign that day had that restriction, and that it is part of the agreement in the contract with the landowner, and to prove the signs were prominent and near the car, and capable of forming an agreed contract to pay £100, and that the timing was correct (how do you know she overstayed, because PCM said so?!). As you say, there is no evidence:

The picture given doesn't have a time stamp they rely on an operative.

Your Mum was there a few minutes, who timed her and how, and whose story will a Judge believe? Rhetorical questions. This is worth defending and put the other side to strict proof of their case.

We do win almost every Gladstones case, only one was seen to be lost in a year, counting OPs who stick around, come back and get help with their WS and evidence, and who get assistance before their hearing.

I would defend this as driver, for the reasons I said before.

Easier for Mum to be at a hearing saying she was there a few minutes, maybe 15 but didn't time it and does not accept their evidence, especially as the witness/operative won't have turned up to the hearing (gives her the advantage in her oral evidence, then) nor did she see any prominent signs, nor did she agree to pay £100.

Mirani

Okay that's more understandable and puts me more at ease, since it will be easier for her to understand her own defence and express to the judge. I will try to write another defence/amend the old one and post it soon.

Mirani

Writing a defence as driver is more straightforward and means she needn't worry about any legalese or tying herself up in knots at the hearing

Is this enough as a defence for defending as a driver or should I add points included in my last defence?

I am ___________, Defendant in this matter and the registered keeper and driver of the named car, registered _________,

I was issued a parking charge dated 20/04/2017, the charge was issued by the claimant Parking Control Management (PCM) Ltd on the basis of ‘Parking having exceeded the time limit’ at the location High Point village. Though the details on the claim are scant it is believed that the claimant assumes:
a. That a contract was broken by the defendant
b. That a sum was agreed to regarding the parking charge and that any additional charges were agreed to thereafter.
c. That the terms and conditions of the parking were prominently displayed and met the conditions set out by the British Parking Association (BPA)

I assert that the Claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons:
a. That I did not exceed the time limit allocated, but that I had moved from the location, only to return a few minutes later to the same location, therefore not having broken the time limit for a single parking event.
b. That the claim relies on a human attendant to record the time each car has parked and could have missed the car leaving and returning in those few minutes between two separate parking events.
c. The claimant has increased the charge without giving a reason from £100 to £160.

Events on the day in question:
I had parked my car at High Point Village as noted by the attendant at “12:08”, my job requires me to leave my contact details at certain specified residencies, which does not take much time, therefore I was able to leave and return to the car within the 20 minutes period. However a letter from the claimant states that the attendant “returned” still finding the car there at “12:42”, indicating that the attendant could have easily missed the car leaving and returning within that time period and thereby starting a new parking event. This means that the attendant can not be safely relied on as a moderator of the terms of the contract.

Coupon-mad

You need more, because for example, that brief defence doesn't even seem to mention unclear signs, and the fact that the appellant driver was not aware of nor agreed to any £100 'parking charge'.

Unless your Mum mentions in defence now, things like the illegible/sparse signs, and lack of landowner authority, and the fact that the Claim cannot be inflated by random additional charges, she then can't raise these points AT ALL at the hearing. Many cases are won on dodgy signs - and we know signs are there (they always are).

How clear is the £100 - not buried in small print, but shown prominently in the largest bold font and size lettering?

Thought not!

Lamilad

PCM signs are always terrible and packed with small, barely readable text.

You need to read other defences and insert some good paragraphs about woeful signage, incapable of forming a contract, not complying with CoP, difference from Beavis case etc

Mirani

1. I am___________. Defendant in this matter and the registered keeper and driver of the named car, registered ________.

2. I was issued a parking charge dated 20/04/2017, the charge was issued by the claimant Parking Control Management (PCM) Ltd on the basis of ‘Parking having exceeded the time limit’ at the location High Point village. Though the details on the claim are scant it is believed that the claimant assumes:
a. That a contract was broken by the defendant
b. That a sum was agreed to regarding the parking charge and that any additional charges were agreed to thereafter.
c. That the terms and conditions of the parking were prominently displayed and met the conditions set out by the British Parking Association (BPA)

3. I assert that the Claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons:
a. That I did not exceed the time limit allocated, but that I had moved from the location, only to return a few minutes later to the same location, therefore not having broken the time limit for a single parking event.
b. That the claim relies on a human attendant to record the time each car has parked and could have missed the car leaving and returning in those few minutes between two separate parking events.
c. The claimant has injudiciously inflated the charge without giving a reason from £100 to £160.
d. That the terms and conditions of the parking in question were not prominently displayed at the location, so that the driver could be made aware of the charge.
e. That the claimant has any authority as a landowner over the area in question

4. Events on the day in question:
I had parked my car at High Point Village as noted by the attendant at “12:08”, my job requires me to leave my contact details at certain specified residencies, which does not take much time, therefore I was able to leave and return to the car within the 20 minutes period. However a letter from the claimant states that the attendant “returned” still finding the car there at “12:42”, indicating that the attendant could have easily missed the car leaving and returning within that time period and thereby starting a new parking event. This means that the attendant can not be safely relied on as a moderator of the terms of the contractor.


5. It is pointed out that the particulars of the claim are scant, vague and lack pertinent information. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely provide a date, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
a. The claimant has given no particulars of the contract just that a contract was broken, they mention no specific cause of action to give rise to the debt. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific and adequate defence.
b. The claim 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.
c. The claim just states "parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable" which gives no indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of ‘trespass’ or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Again hindering a reasonable defence to be made.
d. It is also pointed out that for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstone's' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

6. It is pointed out that the Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

7. The Defendant denies that the terms and conditions, and the charge of £100 were properly displayed, sufficiently so that the defendant could be made reasonably aware of the charge and the conditions of the parking. The charge is also injudiciously inflated from the original £100 to £160 without any apparent reason, a sign of extortionate behaviour.

8. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence hindering the driver to become aware of the conditions of parking, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
a. Sporadic and illegible (parking charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
b. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
c. the inadequate font size of the sign to make it sufficiently legible.

9. The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes.
a. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

10. It is pointed out that the claimant has no authority over this land therefore do not have the authority to indiscriminately hand out charges.

11. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

12. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable.

I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.

Mirani

Is this sufficient?

I also wasn't able to find the case regarding district judge cross, shall I cut that out if I can't find the evidence for it.

and on point 10 I have no evidence whether PCM have authority over the land or not. I just assumed they didn't since they are only a management company

Redx

remove ALL PERSONAL INFORMATION , like name , VRM details etc from your posts

TMI (Too Much Information) - no need for personal details on a public forum