Parking ticket, received court letters, district enforcement

i_liketurtles · 9 October 2018 at 8:55PM

Can i just ask an opinion,
Would you guys lead the defense with the fact that the parking is not obstructive? or that the appeals procedure wasn't followed? The only reason i ask is even though its clear that the parking is not obstructive, i worry they may find some sort of loophole argument, where as it seems much more clean cut that they didn't follow the appeals procedure they lay down.
Also, does the wording of the claim particulars being different to the ticket hold any bearing?
Many Thanks in advance.

i_liketurtles · 11 October 2018 at 4:21PM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You can beat this scam.

Hopefully this is the first step towards that! I have been reading through all the forums, and i have made my 1st draft for my defence, would love to hear what you guys think of it, and where it can be improved, thanks again for all the help so far.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

DISTRICT ENFORCEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

_____________________________________________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT _____________________________________________________________________________________
Preliminary

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. Nor do the particulars of claim specify whether they are pursuing the defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle or as the assumed driver. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all, for the following reasons.
2. The claimant issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for ‘Obstructive Parking’. The defendant disputes this and can provide photographic evidence of the position of the vehicle during which time the notice was received, clearly showing that it does not obstruct other vehicles.
3. The defendant initially appealed the charge using the claimants appeal procedure. The claimant then;
3.1 Failed to inform the defendant on the outcome of the appeal, whether it had been accepted or refused. This directly goes against the information provided on the Parking Charge Notice itself.
3.2 Failed to provide a Notice to Keeper as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
3.3 Failed to provide any other paperwork, evidence of any sort, or indicate to the defendant that they were continuing with the charge.
4.1 At the time the PCN was issued, there was no signage at the entrance to the car park, or visible from the car park indicating the terms and conditions of the car park. This is inadequate.
4.2 The only sign was some distance from the entrance of the car park, directly following a roundabout, and at a point used as a crossing. This sign was not visible on exit from the car park.
4.3 The bay markings within the car park are near to non-existent and cannot be used to suitably indicate what is meant to be a parking bay and what is not. They are inadequate.
4.4 There were no markings or signage present in the area which the defendant parked his vehicle which would indicate that it was a no parking area of any sort.
5 The initial PCN fee was £70, however the Claimant has claimed for £207.31, including £130 parking fee, £25 Court fee and £50 legal representatives’ costs.
5.1 The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
5.2 The claimants charge notice indicates that unsuccessful appeals should be notified and will then be granted a further 14 days to pay the reduced rate of £35 or continue to the independent appeals procedure. Since the defendant was never informed as to the state of their appeal, they were never granted this option had they chosen to consider it.
6. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
7. I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above.
I Believe the facts in this statement are true.
Please feel free to tell me how it is, i would rather know if something is wrong or unnecessary!