UKPCM PCN "Outside of Marked Bay"

louiemiro

KeithP wrote: »

Looks like louiemiro is waiting patiently for up to six years for the parking company to decide whether or not to take court action.

If you would like help with an issue then please read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread and if you still have questions the please start a new thread.

Hi Keith. Patience indeed!
Should I start a new thread? I have been served CCC (see my other full post today). Many thanks.

KeithP

louiemiro wrote: »

Hi Keith. Patience indeed!
Should I start a new thread? I have been served CCC (see my other full post today). Many thanks.

No, please do not start a new thread.
Keep all posts about one incident to one thread.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?

louiemiro

KeithP wrote: »

No, please do not start a new thread.
Keep all posts about one incident to one thread.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?

25 feb


Yes from there. Thanks

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 25th February, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 1st April 2019 to file your Defence.

That's a month away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very 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 "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put 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.

louiemiro

KeithP wrote: »

With a Claim Issue Date of 25th February, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 1st April 2019 to file your Defence.

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


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

1. Print your Defence.
2. Sign it and date it.
3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4. Send that pdf as an email attachment to [EMAIL="CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk"]CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk[/EMAIL]
5. 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'.
6. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
7. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
8. 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.

Thank you very much Keith.

Is it a good idea to run my defence past someone on here. If so, how?

KeithP

louiemiro wrote: »

Is it a good idea to run my defence past someone on here. If so, how?

Yes. Feel free to post your suitably redacted Defence here for critique whenever you are ready.

Le_Kirk

Yes, you can post your defence on here for critique. Just type it in like a normal post. It won't be that long especially if you use one of Bargepole's concise defences.

louiemiro

KeithP wrote: »

Yes. Feel free to post your suitably redacted Defence here for critique whenever you are ready.

Hi all and thank you for continued guidance.



This keeper is struggling a bit to find a defence template that (i) this keeper really understands (ii) that matches this keeper's situation. Some defences this keeper has read seem incredibly simple and brief, and others seem very long and full of "speak" that this keeper struggles to know if is relevant to this case. Any pointers really (really) welcomed.

to start:

Some questions:



1:.
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]"Request for Restriction of Processing of Data[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]We refer to your request regarding the restriction of processing of data."
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The keeper has received a refusal from Gladstones. (as I think expected)


2: On returning to the car park in question, the parking company has changed and the signage has all changed (to "Horizon"). The keeper has distant images of original signage, but not recent & up close (the whole carpark has been rebuilt), but [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]the keeper knows....

[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](a) that signs were occasional and 7 foot up posts and that the writing was illegible from a car, (....is this relevant to a defence ?)

(b) that any wording regarding "within marked bays" did not define "within" and so a turned tyre being[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] 8 inches outside[/FONT] wouldn't constitute a vehicle to any intents and purposes being not "within a marked bay" (would it?). The vehicle was 99.9% within the bay. (also the carpark was empty). Thoughts please?

3: The Dept Recovery company (DRP) seems to have sent at least one letter on Gladstones-headed notepaper (evidenced by a couple of pieces of evidence within the letter). How might I use this please?

4: This keeper has requested the data / images from the company, but if the keeper doesn't receive this b4 the defence submission date, can he expect the ability to frame the defence to be hindered?

Many thanks for any further pointers. This keeper couldn't find "100's" of Bargepoles defences, so any help finding examples that might help would be wonderful.

Have a great evening.




[/FONT]
p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 120%; }p.western { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; }p.cjk { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; }p.ctl { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; }

KeithP

You will find example Defences, including bargepole's concise defences, linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread. There is a link to the NEWBIES thread in one of my 1st March posts above.

louiemiro

KeithP wrote: »

You will find example Defences, including bargepole's concise defences, linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread. There is a link to the NEWBIES thread in one of my 1st March posts above.

Ok.... Here's draft #1.
Thoughts please.

---

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK C** P*** M*****MENT LTD (Claimant)

-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, was parked on the material date in a marked bay at XXXX Retail Park, and had a valid reason be parked in that bay, namely the use of the shopping facilities in said retail park, for which it was clear the parking zone was intended, and for which the landowner had clearly provided for use of customers of these premises.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant ######## was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s) #######;. 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. (a) 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 parking bays, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked' nor definition of the term "within".

5 (b) It is further noted that The Vehicle in question was on the date in question parked for all intents and purposes as "within a bay" as might be reasonably described as such by any reasonable person.
Further, if any reasonable estimate be made as to the degree to which the vehicle was parked "within" the bay, (by dint of one wheel turned a small proportion over the a marking line, by a matter of approximately 7 inches from any inspection of the paultry and inadequate photographic imagery provided by the Claimant to the defendant) then that estimate would likely show a proportion of the said vehicle being "within" the bay in the environs of 99.9% "within" whether judging by a proportion of mass (in kg) of said vehicle, or even by judging by an estimate of the proportion of volume (in cubic metres) of the said vehicle.

6. (a) 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 (over 7 feet up a post.) 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.

6 (b) The Claimant has shown no evidence of the number of signage sites (signs) across the site, which the defendant contends was paultry. There is no record in the defendants notes of any more than 2 or 3 signs on a site that had a dimension in the region of 2100 Sq metres.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary 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. It is noted that the UKCPM no longer operates the carpark.

8: It is noted that there is evidence that DRP has used a Gladstones letterhead to write to the defendant, and hence has falsely represented itself, and it has yet to be established whether DRP had the permission to do so.
The service (by DRP) appears to have included sending at least one letter on Gladstones headed notepaper that amount to False Instruments.

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.