PCN at High Point Village, Hayes

Coupon-mad

Not 'Independent Parking Committee'.

They changed their name years ago which suggests to me the defence you copied from is old.

Repetition of this, remove one of them:

The IPC guidelines (14) state ‘You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance’.

And remove #3 and #4, and make these changes to the first points, I'd say:

1. I am the Defendant, [STRIKE]???? , DOB xx/xx/xxxx, and reside at ??????[/STRIKE] and it is admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event.

2. The Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.

[STRIKE]3. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and 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. On the basis of the above, the defendant requests the court strike out the claim.[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]4. The claimant is a member of the International Parking Community (IPC), whose company Directors are William Hurley and John Davies. The IPC’s ‘independent’ appeal service, called the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), is run in-house by the IPC. Gladstone Solicitors Limited company directors are also Will Hurley and John Davies. It is submitted that this chain of events is founded upon a conflict of interest and operates in breach of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and is contrary to good faith.[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]5.[/STRIKE] 3. The claimant has previously stated in pre-action correspondence that the vehicle was observed in the space for more than 20 minutes. This is denied and did not occur, and in fact, the Defendant was not 'parked' at all, merely accessing the site for 7 - 8 minutes initially, to meet and pick up a colleague from the train.

4. The Defendant [STRIKE]enquired[/STRIKE] phoned to find out where the colleague was and understood he would be a further 15 minutes, so the Defendant drove off as to not occupy a space, or park for a prolonged period. [STRIKE]for longer than needed[/STRIKE].

5. The Defendant then returned 15 minutes later and was there stationary in a marked bay for 3 minutes before driving off.

6. The Claimant has put the first photo of the Defendant arriving at the site and the last photo of the Defendant leaving together deceptively, to suggest that the car [STRIKE]to try and show the defendant[/STRIKE] was in the parking space for a single parking period of 24 minutes despite the photos showing the vehicle in separate parking spaces and facing alternative directions. The defendant has previously requested photos of the vehicle between the times of 10:45 and 11:06 which the claimant has failed to produce.

7. The Defendant did not see any signage on either occasion as the Defendant did not get out of the vehicle, nor even park. Picking up a passenger to board, is not parking activity and is simply part of the general comings & goings of vehicles on a daily basis, covered by the right to pass and repass and stop for the purpose of accessing any train station in the normal way. Since re-visiting the site, the signage next to the parking bays is illegible without getting out of the vehicle as it is at a height of 3.2m above the pavement. Once more whilst sat in the car at an eyeline height of 1.15m this can not be seen and is not legible. The Defendant did not knowingly enter into any type of contract, nor did the Defendant agree to pay, or know about, any penalty for passing by to pick a passenger up.

Skimad247

Thanks Coupon-Mad - do i need to include points 9-14 or will the 7 points you've highlighted will give me enough of a defence?

Coupon-mad

Yes you need the rest of it, I was only making changes to the start, for you.

Skimad247

Do i need to put any photos into my defence?

KeithP

Skimad247 wrote: »

Do i need to put any photos into my defence?

A Defence is purely words.

Surely you have looked at several Defences by now - at least all those linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread?

Evidence comes later.

Skimad247

Update: Gladstone can't even copy and paste properly - formatting all over the place:



We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Client

’s intention to proceed with the claim. 　
　

Please find enclosed a copy of our Client

’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon their request. You will note we intend to request a special direction that the case be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing 　
　

This request is sought simply because the matter is in our Client

’s opinion relatively straightforward and the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate. We trust you agree. 　
　 　

You will note our Client has elected not to mediate. Its decision is not meant to be in any way obstructive and is based purely on experience, as mediation has rarely proven beneficial in these types of cases. Notwithstanding this, our Client would be happy to listen to any genuine payment proposals that you wish to put forward.

The_Deep

Apostrophe abuse, complain to your MP.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

KeithP

I updated post #8 above a few days ago to include:

• Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
  
• Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of [URL="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread[/URL] to find out exactly what to do with it.

Skimad247

How long would one normally need to wait for a DQ from CCBC? it's been 18 days since I submitted my defence but nothing received yet?

nosferatu1001

Have you checked MCOL to see if theyve sent one out?