Pcn small claim but no defence

SophS

Thank you Jonersh and Castle, I'm beavering away looking all this up to try to get my head around vicarious liability angle..and both quoted case law above.... so that I can incorporate a response to their argument in my WS.

As mentioned above, BWL response to my defence statement was to send a pack that included photos of my vehicle, of signs etc and rebuttals to my arguments and a copy of contact between VCS and the landowner.

The latter is dated May 2012 and in very small print says "VCS will provide a parking control service at the Car Park for a fixed period of 3 months from the 28th day of May 2012"

The alleged contravention happened in October 2015, why would BWL not include a more recent copy of the contract that covers the actual period of the contravention to prove that their "Client (VCS) is engaged by the landowner of the carpark to manage and enforce the parking conditions in situ...."

I don't know much but even I know that contracts must be in date to be 1 enforceable and 2 admissible in court. Am I barking up the wrong tree here?

It could be that they sent the wrong copy of the contract and that there is a more up to date one at hand but reading the above, it reads as though VCS contract to manage the car park expired in Aug 2012.
It even makes several references to VCS being a member of the BPA when they moved to IPC in September 2014.

I don't know if the pack i received was a WS but it's not headed up as such...so I don't know if it is the same things as the court would have received and if so...are they allowed to change or add to their submitted evidence?

I wouldn't mind bringing it to the judge's attention that BWL is banging on about breach of contract when they potentially don't have the right to even operate on the land.

Castle

Are the photos of the signs date stamped?

SophS

Yes in red as you get on a camera and says Feb. 23. 2015 so 8 months before the alleged contravention.

[Deleted User]

Scan or photograph the statement with your personal details and the court details redacted. it's much easier to review then.

You need a hosting site. Dropbox is your friend.

You may need to change the http:/ part of the weblink to hxxp so as to be able to post the web address on here.

SophS

I've not tried sharing a link before so I hope it worked. It contains two docs, one is a copy of my defence (also above in post 57) the other is the statement pack from BWL.

Is this what you meant when you said scan the statement Jonersh?

Also please ignore all the highlighted parts and my scribble in the borders - that's just me making notes to address in the WS.
try either link
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s9nlwz2iumtsfuj/AADLm044IZ8q52xKGkET9VXca?dl=0

hxxps://www.dropbox.com/sh/s9nlwz2iumtsfuj/AADLm044IZ8q52xKGkET9VXca?dl=0[/URL]

[Deleted User]

Great, that works. A redacted copy of the particulars would be great - just to see it is the usual 1 sentence guff.

I'd genuinely write back and make clear that your defence responds to the particulars. Their recent correspondence addresses issues that firm no part of their pleaded case and you will invite the court to debar them from relying on them.

It is a farrago of pasted together cases - in parts a direct response to the defence and in others stating what will happen if proceedings are issued: !!!!!!?

The sign on entry is decent - perhaps you should notice it. The other one is 900m up in the sky (so possibly not).

Even if you go down on the ticket, I reckon you should be able to attack the charges. It'll be on them to prove the costs incurred.

[Deleted User]

Looking at the document pack:

1. Their photos are quite useful to show that terms relating to their additional charges simply are unreadable.

2. Arguably VCS are in breach of the 2012 contract (that ain't a permit sign) and ANPR is a material change not merely other terms, which requires notice in writing.

SophS

Oki Doki, I've uploaded Particulars of Claim (redacted) to the same dropbox link.

Maybe the details weren't as brief as I originally thought. I counted that there were at least 775 characters including spaces! So while not 1080 and no other attachments, it's not exactly one sentence.

I am going to hash out a draft for the WS and will include all the points you and Castle mentioned above.

I admit I don't exactly know what you mean in some of your points so please bear with me if I ask for clarification, I'll try not to be a drain on anyone's time but its a bit like learning to write Japanese with my left hand.
Can we start with this one below?

2. Arguably VCS are in breach of the 2012 contract (that ain't a permit sign) and ANPR is a material change not merely other terms, which requires notice in writing.

Coupon-mad

I take that to mean, the 2012 contract allows them to operate a permit scheme.

Instead, they are operating a completely different scheme and using ANPR (and they won't have complied with the ICO COP on surveillance camera ANPR use).

SophS

Hi Coupon-mad.

I just wanted to clarify PCN/NTK timeframe deadlines that PPC's should adhere to because I'm a bit confused and would like to work out my own dates of when I should have received things through the post (a flow chart would be great on this site - eg what someone should look out for and by when do if they get a windscreen/postal pcn)

So in my case, this was a postal PCN.

I don't have anything other than LBC, Claim Form and subsequent PPC mail, because I ignored and discarded, however:

if the alleged contravention happened on the 2nd of October, then am I right in saying that the postal PCN should have been with me by 14 days after? In this case 16th Oct?

And then Paragraph of POFA says that after 28 days of receiving the NTK the PPC will have the right to recover from the keeper...etc.

This is where I'm confused, it reads as though the NTK should arrive no later than 14 days after alleged contravention...... or does it mean 14 days after receipt of the PCN (which would be the 16th Oct mentioned above) and from that count 28 days to recover from keeper?