First Parking PCN

KeithP

zipadee said:

Claim form received on Friday. Issue date is 12 March 2021.

Are you sure about those details?

A Claim issued on 12th March, which was Friday, cannot have been received on Friday - the same day.

It doesn't matter when you received it, but please confirm the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form.

As @Umkomaas suggests, hold off from filing an Acknowledgment of Service for the moment.

zipadee

Issue date definitely 12 March 2021

KeithP

zipadee said:

Issue date definitely 12 March 2021

With a Claim Issue Date of 12th March, you have until Wednesday 31st March to file an Acknowledgment of Service. If possible, do not file an AoS before 18th March, but otherwise, there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AoS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 14th April 2021 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

zipadee

Hi
I am trying to put together a defence  and struggling a little bit for what to put in section 3. of the template. I have come up with the following. All advice and comments welcome. I am planning to visit the car park at the weekend as it is not that far away, to see the signage for myself.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3.  The Defendant first learned of the parking charge by post a month after the incident took place.  What followed was a bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters, the tone of which became increasingly severe in tone and felt like harassment. The final debt recovery’ letter even made reference to a Channel 5 TV show stating “Can’t pay ? We’ll take it away”, which is not only untrue as this was a debt recovery’ letter but was intended to cause maximum stress to the Defendant.

The Defendant understands that the car park is for residential users living in University accommodation, some of which is a significant distant from the car park.

The Defendant also understands that the car park maybe used by visitors to unload heavy items to be transported to the residential accommodation as there is no other means to do this.

The Defendant also understands from the University that the car park operates a grace period of 30 mins for parking.

The Defendant also notes that First Parking did not operate an ANPR system, so is unable to provide evidence of when the vehicle entered and left the car park. First Parking has provided a photo of the parked vehicle but has not provided photos that confirm that the vehicle was parked for longer than the grace period.

Fruitcake

If the driver was loading or unloading, then the findings of the judge in the Jopson vs Homeguard case should be included.

Redx

The first paragraph in 3 is a rant , not a defence , save the jackanory for your WS

Get some inspiration from this thread which includes a university and Jopson

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6243577/urgent-help-needed-county-court-claim-first-parking-dcb-legal/p1

zipadee

Having read the thread Redx suggested, I think Jopson and signage is my defence. When I requested SAR, the photo of signage provided is not legible. Would it be advisable to go and take pictures of the signage in the car park and also the entrance to car park to determine how to use in defence ?  

Also regarding  the additional charge of £60, is there any point in asking DCBL about how they can justify this or am I past this  point. I guess I can bring this up later in court if it comes to that.

Also they have sent a copy of the agreement between FP and the landowner. One of the parties is actually Securitas Security who are acting on behalf of the university.

Thanks

zipadee

The below from another University of Hertfordshire thread seems apt. 

14. The Defendant has returned to the Car Park to observe the signage and noted that the car park has no entrance sign, breaking requirement 18.2 of the British Parking Association code of practice. The Claimant’s main signage has 6 different background colours making the wording especially difficult to read and understand in the dark and in poor artificial light conditions. The Claimant’s main signage also has no mention of a charge for failing to comply with their conditions. The Claimant’s signs are cluttered and confusing, they have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA. Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed.

Coupon-mad

Pretty sure I replied on that thread and pointed out something to add to that, about the coloured sign.

zipadee

Yes I believe you did Coupon-mad but that was the last defence posted by Mercer.