Gladstones court letter parking on double yellow lines

Umkomaas

DYLs are irrelevant. The facts of your case are really no different to most other cases on here. Your vehicle has been parked somewhere or for longer than a private parking company's 'rules' permit.

DYLs are a total red herring - get them out of your head and deal with this the same way as 99% of other the cases we help with.

Lamilad

The driver received a fine from uk car park management

This is not a "fine" it is an invoice for (supposedly) parking services offered by a private company.

Since then the driver has received letters from gladstones addressed to the rented accommodation

You mean "the keeper" has received letters? How could they possibly know who was driving? Presumabley the rented accommodation is where the vehicle is registered?

for parking outside rented accommodation on double yellow lines!

What did the PCN/NTK actually state as the 'contravention'? I can't imagine it even mentioned yellows as they don't mean anything on private land. Did it just say that the driver had breached the T& C's?

Coupon-mad

I expect it said 'parked in a restricted area' or 'without a permit'.

But that's not the point - the detail doesn't matter.

It's an ''own space'' defence so base yours on the clear example set out by Johnersh as one of the example defences, alter it to make sense, and show us the draft.

Sb1971

The rented accommodation where the court summons was addressed to isn't actually the registered address of the vehicle or where the initial letter was sent.

KeithP

Sb1971 wrote: »

The rented accommodation where the court summons was addressed to isn't actually the registered address of the vehicle or where the initial letter was sent.

So how did Gladstones get his rented address?

And what is the point you are trying to make?

Sb1971

I have no idea how gladstones got the rented address. I am not trying to make any point just state the facts to obtain as much help as possible.

Sb1971

Thank you Couponmad for all your help, I will write a defence and post in the morning.

Coupon-mad

Sb1971 wrote: »

The rented accommodation where the court summons was addressed to isn't actually the registered address of the vehicle or where the initial letter was sent.

But presumably the car driver was either visiting or invited to be there, or staying there? Own space case then, but 'visitor of' the resident...or were they the resident at the rented accommodation?

Is the claim addressed to the keeper, or the driver, and how has the data changed, just the address or has the person they've been writing to, changed from keeper's name to driver? How?!

Maybe - did a debt collector send letters and have a phone conversation and put a bat up the nightdress of a scared family member who blabbed about who was driving and where they might be living?

Sb1971

Hello again,

To answer your questions:

The car driver was the resident at the rented accommodation but the vehicle is was registered elsewhere. I have no idea how Gladstones have found the rented accommodation address.

The claim is addressed to the keeper but not at the address where the vehicle is registered. We have no idea how the data has changed and have certainly not provided any information to debt collectors.

Sb1971

This is our draft response: Thanks again for your continued help

DEFENCE

Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark AE03HZH which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with Carrot Insurance with 1 named drivers permitted to use it.

4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at St. Georges Close.

5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Claimant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.


Alternative Claim - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
8. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of the Defence are true.