We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
PCN, Country Court Claim
tczj888
Posts: 5 Forumite
Hi everyone,
I was taken to the court by the PCN asking for 434.14 pound. I was accused to park there twice within three days when I was loading my stuff during moving. I attached my defense letter here for advice. Your comments will be greatly appreciated!!
1. I am the Defendant, XX , DOB XX, and reside at XX and it is admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event.
2. Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.
Preliminary matters:
3. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).
4. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges/damages” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. I have asked questions in the form of a Part 18 request but have not received any response.
5. 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. 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, I request the court strike out the claim.
In further support of there being a want of cause of action:
6. The PCN was issued on a poorly signed private road where I was loading. At the time, I was moving into the flat and the car was parked there for loading in both cases. I was completely unaware that the site was being enforced by any restrictive terms, due to insufficient signage. After I was issued private parking ticket, I checked the area and found the broken sign (attached). I refer to the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) Part E, highlighting that adequate and clear entrance signs are required.
7. The road was not marked as a no-stopping zone nor transparently signed as a permit-holders or 'managed' site, as their CoP requires.
8. There was no clearway sign nor red lines/hatched lines to communicate 'no stopping' and certainly nothing was seen about permits or how to obtain one, or the charge itself.
9. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons:
(a) As the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking on the site in question;
(b) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable;
(c) The penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no matter whether a motorist overstays by ten seconds or ten years; and
(d) The clause is specifically expressed to be a parking charge on the Claimant's signs.
10. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that a CoP is effectively 'regulation' for the private parking industry, full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.
12. Any ‘charge’ or terms on signage on the day was not seen but even if the court believes signs were displayed, the terms were in such small print as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
14. I submit that the IAS decision should be disregarded; it is ostensibly described as an appeal service, yet the Assessors' names remain secret. No figures or reports are published by the IAS but the publication 'Parking Review' reported that only 20% of appeals were upheld (compared to POPLA where 50% have consistently been upheld since its inception in 2012). There is no scrutiny board, unlike POPLA. The IAS decisions in the public domain blatantly disregard recognised standards of law or justice.
17. Even if the court is minded to accept that a sign was visible, the wording on the sign was prohibitive. Unlike in the Beavis case, the Claimant offered no licence to park if ‘unauthorised’. A purported licence to stop without a permit, in exchange for payment of a ‘charge’ on the one hand, cannot be offered when that same conduct is, on the other hand, expressly prohibited in the signage wording. This does not create any possible contract.
18. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.
19. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.
20. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.
21. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, Parking Control Management (UK) Limited could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).
24. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.
25. The court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success. In the alternative, the Defendant is willing for the matter to be decided by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) which will decide the dispute and limits any further costs to this claimant to £27, with no legal costs.
I was taken to the court by the PCN asking for 434.14 pound. I was accused to park there twice within three days when I was loading my stuff during moving. I attached my defense letter here for advice. Your comments will be greatly appreciated!!
1. I am the Defendant, XX , DOB XX, and reside at XX and it is admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event.
2. Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.
Preliminary matters:
3. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).
4. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges/damages” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. I have asked questions in the form of a Part 18 request but have not received any response.
5. 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. 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, I request the court strike out the claim.
In further support of there being a want of cause of action:
6. The PCN was issued on a poorly signed private road where I was loading. At the time, I was moving into the flat and the car was parked there for loading in both cases. I was completely unaware that the site was being enforced by any restrictive terms, due to insufficient signage. After I was issued private parking ticket, I checked the area and found the broken sign (attached). I refer to the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) Part E, highlighting that adequate and clear entrance signs are required.
7. The road was not marked as a no-stopping zone nor transparently signed as a permit-holders or 'managed' site, as their CoP requires.
8. There was no clearway sign nor red lines/hatched lines to communicate 'no stopping' and certainly nothing was seen about permits or how to obtain one, or the charge itself.
9. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons:
(a) As the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking on the site in question;
(b) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable;
(c) The penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no matter whether a motorist overstays by ten seconds or ten years; and
(d) The clause is specifically expressed to be a parking charge on the Claimant's signs.
10. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that a CoP is effectively 'regulation' for the private parking industry, full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.
12. Any ‘charge’ or terms on signage on the day was not seen but even if the court believes signs were displayed, the terms were in such small print as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
14. I submit that the IAS decision should be disregarded; it is ostensibly described as an appeal service, yet the Assessors' names remain secret. No figures or reports are published by the IAS but the publication 'Parking Review' reported that only 20% of appeals were upheld (compared to POPLA where 50% have consistently been upheld since its inception in 2012). There is no scrutiny board, unlike POPLA. The IAS decisions in the public domain blatantly disregard recognised standards of law or justice.
17. Even if the court is minded to accept that a sign was visible, the wording on the sign was prohibitive. Unlike in the Beavis case, the Claimant offered no licence to park if ‘unauthorised’. A purported licence to stop without a permit, in exchange for payment of a ‘charge’ on the one hand, cannot be offered when that same conduct is, on the other hand, expressly prohibited in the signage wording. This does not create any possible contract.
18. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.
19. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.
20. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.
21. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, Parking Control Management (UK) Limited could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).
24. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.
25. The court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success. In the alternative, the Defendant is willing for the matter to be decided by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) which will decide the dispute and limits any further costs to this claimant to £27, with no legal costs.
0
Comments
-
Hi everyone,
I was taken to the court by the PCN asking for 434.14 pound. I was accused to park there twice within three days when I was loading my stuff during moving. I attached my defense letter here for advice. Your comments will be greatly appreciated!!
1. I am the Defendant, XX , DOB XX, and reside at XX and it is admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event.
2. Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.
Preliminary matters:
3. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).
4. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges/damages” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. I have asked questions in the form of a Part 18 request but have not received any response.
5. 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. 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, I request the court strike out the claim.
In further support of there being a want of cause of action:
6. The PCN was issued on a poorly signed private road where I was loading. At the time, I was moving into the flat and the car was parked there for loading in both cases. I was completely unaware that the site was being enforced by any restrictive terms, due to insufficient signage. After I was issued private parking ticket, I checked the area and found the broken sign (attached). I refer to the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) Part E, highlighting that adequate and clear entrance signs are required.
7. The road was not marked as a no-stopping zone nor transparently signed as a permit-holders or 'managed' site, as their CoP requires.
8. There was no clearway sign nor red lines/hatched lines to communicate 'no stopping' and certainly nothing was seen about permits or how to obtain one, or the charge itself.
9. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons:
(a) As the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking on the site in question;
(b) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable;
(c) The penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no matter whether a motorist overstays by ten seconds or ten years; and
(d) The clause is specifically expressed to be a parking charge on the Claimant's signs.
10. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that a CoP is effectively 'regulation' for the private parking industry, full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.
12. Any ‘charge’ or terms on signage on the day was not seen but even if the court believes signs were displayed, the terms were in such small print as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
14. I submit that the IAS decision should be disregarded; it is ostensibly described as an appeal service, yet the Assessors' names remain secret. No figures or reports are published by the IAS but the publication 'Parking Review' reported that only 20% of appeals were upheld (compared to POPLA where 50% have consistently been upheld since its inception in 2012). There is no scrutiny board, unlike POPLA. The IAS decisions in the public domain blatantly disregard recognised standards of law or justice.
17. Even if the court is minded to accept that a sign was visible, the wording on the sign was prohibitive. Unlike in the Beavis case, the Claimant offered no licence to park if ‘unauthorised’. A purported licence to stop without a permit, in exchange for payment of a ‘charge’ on the one hand, cannot be offered when that same conduct is, on the other hand, expressly prohibited in the signage wording. This does not create any possible contract.
18. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.
19. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.
20. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.
21. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, Parking Control Management (UK) Limited could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).
24. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.
25. The court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success. In the alternative, the Defendant is willing for the matter to be decided by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) which will decide the dispute and limits any further costs to this claimant to £27, with no legal costs.
It's not a "defense letter", it's a Defence.
You do not put your address, or DOB, in your Defence. That comes later in the Witness Statement.
Defences should be written in the third person, not the first.
You do not attach evidence with your Defence, that also goes with the Witness Statement at the relevant stage.
Para 5 is a rant - unless you have evidence to prove it, take it out.
Para 9 is a guaranteed loser. The Beavis case killed all those arguments. Get rid of it.
Para 14 fails the 'so what' test. Ditch that as well.
Para 25 makes no sense. If the PPC was an IPC member, and you already appealed via the IAS, they won't be able to issue a POPLA code, and POPLA won't look at this.
Paras 6, 7 and 8 set out the facts of what happened on the day, and should be at the top of the document, forget about 'preliminary matters', those issues will not be fatal to the Claimant's case.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
Just so you understand your own defence ... you need 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8. You sign it and send it in. The detailed bits e.g. 20 can be held over for the Skeleton Argument if it gets to that stage.
This gets you to the next stage which is setting a hearing date and exchange of evidence in about 5 months time. During the 5 months you collect the evidence you need from the parking company, the DVLA and the landlord/managing agent.
Really quite simple so no need to go all Judge Rinder on these. It's a 5 minute job at a hearing when the facts are clear.This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?0
-
Thanks to those who helped me to draft the letter to response. It is very helpful. I have now received an email from PCM
"We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Client’s intention to proceed with the claim. Please find attached 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. 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. "
Shall I make some offer to settle the case? or is it too late?
Shall I agree to proceed without hearing?
What shall I do next if not settlement? Will the court send me a letter to ask whether I agree to proceed without hearing? I will be grateful to any comments here.0 -
Why not follow the guidance offered in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread?
The answers to all your questions are there.
In particular, read Bargepole's 'what happens when' post.0 -
No and no!Shall I make some offer to settle the case? or is it too late?
Shall I agree to proceed without hearing?
Why are you reading and believing their words and being swayed by them, and not reading our FAQS that covers all of this trash?!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks for this. I have read the section. It notes that
"4. After sending off your Defence, the Northampton Business centre will send a copy to the Claimant, and then send a Directions Questionnaire (form N180) to both Claimant and Defendant. You must complete this by the date given, and send it back to Northampton, with a copy to the other side (or their solicitors if they've nominated one as the address for service). The recommended answers to the questions are as follows:"
On 9 Nov, I received a N180 from the PCM solicitors with their filled form via email - but no more. I think that I will receive a letter or from the court. Is this correct? I have not seen any date on their filled form. Or, have I missed anything? Thanks for your support here. I greatly appreciate it. This does cause a lot of stress to people like me who have zero background in law.0 -
Like you, the Claimant has also been instructed to serve documents on the other party as well as filing it with the court. That is why you have received a copy of their DQ that they have filed with the court.
You now either wait patiently for your DQ from the court, or you download a blank one from the internet. Your choice.0 -
Thanks for this. I have now received N180 from the court. The claimant's solicitor wants to proceed this case without a hearing. Should I agree with this? In their N180 form, they say if I disagree, they want to held it in their home court, which is 2.5 hours by train away from where I live. Should I suggest in my home court in London? If so, where the hearing may actually be held?
After reading some of posts online, I start to doubt whether I can win the case. They originally asked for £60 per ticket X2 and now over 450 in total. However, given the time that I put in this, it does not worth it at all and I might lose anyway.0 -
Thanks for this. I have now received N180 from the court. The claimant's solicitor wants to proceed this case without a hearing. Should I agree with this? In their N180 form, they say if I disagree, they want to held it in their home court, which is 2.5 hours by train away from where I live. Should I suggest in my home court in London? If so, where the hearing may actually be held?
After reading some of posts online, I start to doubt whether I can win the case. They originally asked for £60 per ticket X2 and now over 450 in total. However, given the time that I put in this, it does not worth it at all and I might lose anyway.
I could not see in your posts who the solicitor is but with such rubbish, it must be Gladstones.
YOU DO NOT DO MEDIATION ...... it is pointless and they know that they can win where if they put this case in front of a judge, they will lose.
They are gorging on your money and have added fake charges which a court will not allow given that you alert the court to this
You have the right to have the case heard in your local court, the choice s yours not them.
They are operating like Wongs and we know what happened to that scam outfit ... they went bust0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards