County Court Claim received PCM / Gladstones

Tallulah1981

Thank you in advance to all for your help and support. I've read the stickies and several posts and have found lots of helpful advice already.
To provide some background -
CC claim received for 2 tickets received in early 2018.
The first - car was parked in a residential car park for a few days. When it was parked there were no restrictions/parking company employed. When the driver returned to the car, signs had been installed and a ticket given. The driver has confirmation that unlike some neighbours, they were not notified that restrictions were being introduced.
The second - car was loaned to another person who parked the car in same residential car park at night, being unaware of the recently introduced restrictions. Signage is not illuminated so was not seen. Car was ticketed.
Driver (upon the advice of a trusted colleague) ignored all correspondence and has not appealed.
CC claim received - dated 19 September and acknowledged.
Currently writing the defence but have a question regarding the format before posting it for review - due to the 2 different circumstances for each ticket do you recommend separating them?
Some of the defence statements are valid for both so I could state them first and then enter grounds for defence of ticket 1 and then grounds for defence for ticket 2.
What is your recommendations please?

KeithP

Tallulah1981 wrote: »

CC claim received - dated 19 September and acknowledged.

With a Claim Issue Date of 19th September, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 22nd October 2018 to file your Defence.

That's just one week away. Do not leave it until the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described 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 CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
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) Wait for your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread to find out exactly what to do with it.


Please can you post the exact contents from the Particulars of Claim box on your Claim form.

bargepole

Tallulah1981 wrote: »

Currently writing the defence but have a question regarding the format before posting it for review - due to the 2 different circumstances for each ticket do you recommend separating them?
Some of the defence statements are valid for both so I could state them first and then enter grounds for defence of ticket 1 and then grounds for defence for ticket 2.
What is your recommendations please?

The Defence needs to clearly state, in separate paragraphs, the circumstances in which each of the PCNs was issued.

These should be the opening paragraphs, so that a Judge looking at it later down the line can see what the facts are, the most important aspect of the defence.

There may be legal arguments as to why the Defendant cannot be held liable, which are common to both, and these should follow in the briefest possible summary form.

These might include primacy of residential lease, poor signage, lack of authority and so on.

But keep the whole thing brief (<500 words ideally) and you can expand on all the points later in the Witness Statement and/or Skeleton.

Tallulah1981

KeithP wrote: »

. Please can you post the exact contents from the Particulars of Claim box on your Claim form.

The driver of the vehicle registration ******* (the ‘vehicle’) incurred the parking charge(s) on **/**/2018 & **/**/2018 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at ***.
The defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £320 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £14.18 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgment at £0.07 per day.

System

When it was parked there were no restrictions/parking company employed.

Surely if there were no signs at the start then there was no contract. The signs are the contract but you'll need to get some sort of confirmation about the lack of signs. Send a Subject Access Request to PCM for pics and if there are no images of signs in the background then no contract.

The second - car was loaned to another person who parked the car in same residential car park at night

Again with this one, the SAR would show whether the signs were visible at night so again no contract.

Simple defences required and <300 words if you can do it. <500 words appears to be too generous.

Tallulah1981

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Surely if there were no signs at the start then there was no contract. The signs are the contract but you'll need to get some sort of confirmation about the lack of signs. Send a Subject Access Request to PCM for pics and if there are no images of signs in the background then no contract.

There were no signs or indeed parking company employed on the date the vehicle was parked, on 31st December 2017. These were introduced I believe on or around 3 or 4 January 2018. Driver returned to vehicle on 4 Jan and found PCN affixed to car. I would expect they took photos when the PCN was issued by which time signage had been installed.

]

System

I would expect they took photos when the PCN was issued by which time signage had been installed.

But these would have a different time stamp and would support your argument. If they had no time stamp then their evidential value is zero.

Tallulah1981

I have started drafting the defence. Having initially cutting and pasting points from various other posts I decided to start from scratch as I often didn't understand the legalese. Please excuse my basic style but am hoping the judge will excuse this being a layperson.

I am worried this is more like a witness statement rather than a defence so any pointers are welcome before I continue:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: ***

Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd.

-and-

***

Preliminary Matters

1.It is acknowledged that the defendant, ***, is the registered keeper of the vehicle. It should be noted there is 1 other named driver on the insurance policy and other persons permitted to drive the vehicle during the stated period of 04/01/2018 – 11/02/2018 using their own comprehensive car insurance policies.

2. It is denied that any "parking charges/damages or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

3. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person, and given that the Particulars of this Claim are vague and ambiguously worded, I seek the Court's permission to amend and supplement this Defence as may be required upon disclosure of the Claimant's case.

Background Information

4. The Defendant resides in a block of flats called *** managed by 2 housing associations; Clarion Housing and Southern Housing Group. The Defendant is a resident of Clarion Housing.

4.1 The location of the supposed contraventions is an estate called Mount Pleasant; managed solely by Southern Housing Group and adjacent to the Defendants residence.

4.2 At Mount Pleasant there are ** parking spaces allocated to *** residents. This was indicated by signage behind each bay and ‘**’ sign written on the floor at the front of each bay.

4.3 On 29/11/2017 Southern Housing Group wrote only to their residents at ** to notify they were introducing parking restrictions from 02/01/2018 which would be managed by Parking Control Management UK. From this date a resident or visitor permit would be required to park in the allocated bays.

4.3.1 Southern Housing Group did not issue permits to any Clarion Housing residents.

5. On 11/02/2018 the vehicle was loaned by the Defendant and the driver returned the vehicle late at night.

Rebuttal of Claim – PCN dated 04/01/2018

6. It is denied that:

a. A contract was formed as PCM (UK) Ltd were not contracted to manage parking on 31/12/2017; the date the vehicle entered the estate and was parked.

b. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site. No signage was installed at the time the vehicle entered the car park. Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

c. That there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.

Rebuttal of Claim – PCN dated 11/02/2018

7. It is denied that:

a. A contract was formed as the signs used by this claimant cannot have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs are insufficient in terms of their distribution and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver.

Schedule E of the IPC Code of Practice states ‘If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. You will need to ensure all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge.

‘Such signs must; be clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site.’

System

Really like this defence. It is not a template but a clear rebuttal of the claim and a clear explanation of why. Can't see anything else to add apart from being clear about being the driver IF it adds to the strength of the defence.

nosferatu1001

I would suggest adding that the claimant has failed to engage "keeper liabiility" as otherwise loaning the vehicle and not identifying the driver is irrelevant.

Tallulah1981

Thank you both for your suggestions / feedback and time.

Revised defence -

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: ***

Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd.

-and-

***

Preliminary Matters

1.It is acknowledged that the defendant, ***, is the registered keeper of the vehicle. It should be noted there is 1 other named driver on the insurance policy and other persons permitted to drive the vehicle during the stated period of 04/01/2018 – 11/02/2018 using their own comprehensive car insurance policies.

2. It is denied that any "parking charges/damages or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

3. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person, and given that the Particulars of this Claim are vague and ambiguously worded, I seek the Court's permission to amend and supplement this Defence as may be required upon disclosure of the Claimant's case.

Background Information

4. The Defendant resides in a block of flats called *** managed by 2 housing associations; Clarion Housing and Southern Housing Group. The Defendant is a resident of Clarion Housing.

4.1 The location of the supposed contraventions is an estate called Mount Pleasant; managed solely by Southern Housing Group and adjacent to the Defendants residence.

4.2 At Mount Pleasant there are ** parking spaces allocated to *** residents. This was indicated by signage behind each bay and ‘**’ sign written on the floor at the front of each bay.

4.3 On 29/11/2017 Southern Housing Group wrote only to their residents at ** to notify they were introducing parking restrictions from 02/01/2018 which would be managed by Parking Control Management UK. From this date a resident or visitor permit would be required to park in the allocated bays.

4.3.1 Southern Housing Group did not issue permits to any Clarion Housing residents.

5. On 11/02/2018 the vehicle was loaned by the Defendant and the driver returned the vehicle late at night.

Rebuttal of Claim – PCN dated 04/01/2018

6. It is denied that:

a. A contract was formed as PCM (UK) Ltd were not contracted to manage parking on 31/12/2017; the date the vehicle entered the estate and was parked.

b. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site. No signage was installed at the time the vehicle entered the car park. Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

c. That there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.

Rebuttal of Claim – PCN dated 11/02/2018

7. It is denied that:

a. A contract was formed as the signs used by this claimant cannot have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs are insufficient in terms of their distribution and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver.

Schedule E of the IPC Code of Practice states ‘If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. You will need to ensure all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge.

‘Such signs must; be clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site.’

7.2 The Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

7.2.1 The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.
i. The Claimant did not identify the driver
ii. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach

8. 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 confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed:
Date:

-