PCN for entering wrong car registration nuber entered

hari

yes defendant has completed acknowledgement of service and is going to type the defence now and hopeful to post on here for further help. thankyou

hari

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxx

Excel parking

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, but not the driver was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to company Excel at xxxxx and had a valid permit to be parked at that bay.A honest mistake occurred when the driver entered another vehicle registration.The correct payment was made and the claimants records should confirm this and the parking charge notice should be cancelled as no loss was made to Excel parking.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant xxxx xxxx was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle xxxxxxx These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

hari

Hello,TIA if someone could check this please. keeper can confirm he was not the driver and the car in question which vrn was entered by mistake was no where near. should this be added do you think? proof can be obtained if needed. thankyou

hari

2 The facts are the vehicle registration xxxxx of which the defendant is the registered keeper,was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to company Excel parking at xxxxxxxx parking and had a valid permit to be parked at that bay as a valid ticket was bought but wrong registration was innocently entered.

Umkomaas

I've not gone back over the contents of the thread, but what precisely are Excel pursuing you for - wrong VRM entered or incorrectly parked?

What exactly does it say on the Court Claim form in the Particulars of Claim (box halfway up the left hand side). Word for word please.

Do you have photos of the signs? Let us see those. If not, you need to get some so you know exactly the purported 'contract' Excel are attempting to bind you to.

hari

a sum of £160 being monies due from the defendant to the claimant in respect of charge notice for a contavension on xx xx xx at xxxx at xxxx xxx The charge notice relates to xxxxx make of car and reg. The terms of the CN allowed the defendant 28 days from the issue date to pay the CN but the defendant failed to do so.despite demands having been made.

hari

no mention of wrong registration entered although i did reply to them explaining this . thanks

hari

2. The facts are that the claimant did not loose out as a valid ticket was bought but an innocent mistake was made and incorrect number plate was entered at the ticket machine.

thakyou

hari

am i right in assuming that all of the defence does not apply to this pc? keeper is assuming that the wrong numberplate was typed in the machine ? or some of those letters were mistaken ?
i

Umkomaas

hari wrote: »

am i right in assuming that all of the defence does not apply to this pc? keeper is assuming that the wrong numberplate was typed in the machine ? or some of those letters were mistaken ?
i

That's the problem with their roboclaim gemeric Particulars of Claim (POC), nobody knows what they're defending against, so I think you're right to cover (speculatively) any corner they might have.

You might want to add into the defence that as the POC are so unspecific that you are unable to develop a targeted defence, that you would ask the court to strike out the claim, or, in the alternative, to require the claimant to produce better POC.

Someone with court experience might be able to agree that my suggestion is a way to proceed, and maybe sharpen up the wording?

Have you got photos of the signage?