PCN Advice needed

Coupon-mad

Why do I hate the expression 'my head is swimming'? Dunno why, but I do...

Iceward

** DEFENCE STATEMENT **

So I have a first draft of my initial defence statement. I would appreciate any constructive thoughts or advice.

---

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay from 7.24pm until 7.38pm, a total of 14 minutes.

3. The claimant brings this case on the basis that the above vehicle was parked outside of the car park’s hours of opening, which are 6am until 7pm, and details of which are clearly stated on signs in the car park.

4. The Defendant denies entering into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. A large sign with varying colours and sizing of lettering states that the car park operates a 2 Hours Free Parking policy. A customer need only enter their vehicle details at the machine to take advantage. The sign bears no reference to the car parks opening hours. On the day in question the machine was visited by the driver but would not allow them to input any details. Instead it displayed a message stating ‘MACHINE CLOSED, PLEASE SEE CHARGING HOURS’

6. Therefore it was the Defendants honest held belief, that at the time he was able to park his vehicle free of charge.

7. The basis of the Claimant’s case is such that signs stating the opening hours are clearly displayed in the car park. The Defendant acknowledges the existence of these signs. However, the signs are much smaller than the other sign mentioned in paragraph 5 and are largely made up of a large black box containing white text, all in uppercase, of the same typeface and all bar the uppermost heading, in the same font size. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

10. 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 believe that the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

---

Be gentle please.

Thanks

Iceward

Can anyone please offer their opinion on my defence statement?

Iceward

I am running out of time before I need to submit my defence and I would really appreciate another opinion on my defence statement. So if anyone can spare a few minutes I would be grateful. Thanks

Le_Kirk

You could search the forum for Abuse of Process posted by beamerguy and commented on by Coupon-mad. In that thread you will find some advice and words to use to assist your point 9. Make sure you use ALL of the points made by Coupon-mad.

Iceward

Le_Kirk wrote: »

You could search the forum for Abuse of Process posted by beamerguy and commented on by Coupon-mad. In that thread you will find some advice and words to use to assist your point 9. Make sure you use ALL of the points made by Coupon-mad.

Thank you very much for this! My case also has the extra £60 added on and will be heard in the same sessional area, so I'm really hopeful that I will receive the same outcome.

Can I ask one thing? Lodging my defence via MCOL, is that just the Defence Statement? The other evidence, letters, photos etc stay until court... is that right?

Quentin

Iceward wrote: »

Can I ask one thing? Lodging my defence via MCOL, is that just the Defence Statement? The other evidence, letters, photos etc stay until court... is that right?

No that's wrong!


You do need to make post #2 in the Newbies FAQ thread your "bible" until this is over!


What to do/send/when to send it is all covered there

KeithP

Iceward wrote: »

Can I ask one thing? Lodging my defence via MCOL...

What didn't you understand about post #21?

Iceward wrote: »

I am running out of time before I need to submit my defence...

No you are not.
Re-read post #21, particularly where it says:

...you have until 4pm on Monday 22nd July 2019 to file your Defence.

You still have two weeks to hone your Defence.

Quentin

You are asked to read up on this in the newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum before posting here

After reading up in that thread if you need further assistance please start your own thread and not hijack someone else's like this

Please delete your post above

Coupon-mad

Simian76 wrote: »

Hello - I recently got a ticket from Parking Eye for £100 for overstaying by a few minutes in a supermarket car park. I went down the route following one of the forums suggesting that I did not know who the driver was. My car is used by family and friends so legitimately I am unsure who had it on the weekend as I was away on business and unsure even if it was over the time. Either way £100 for a few minutes seems extreme. I received the below letter back from them:

We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been referred for further information. You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the breach of the terms and conditions of the car park, but you have not indicated who was.

You have already been notified that under section 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. As we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the full name and the current postal address of the driver.

You are warned that if, after 29 days from the Date of Issue, the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you, the registered keeper. This warning is given to you under paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under schedule 4 of that Act.

Please note, if you have made or wish to make an appeal on behalf of the driver, and you do not provide the full name and current postal address of the driver, ParkingEye will be obliged to deal with the representations made in your name.

ParkingEye have placed this charge on hold for 28 days to enable you to provide the evidence requested. If this information is not provided within 28 days, the appeal may well be rejected and a POPLA code provided.

Is there a recommended next action following the above - Pretty sure I shouldn't give them drivers identity!?

This is the same as most ParkingEye appeals and you ignore that.

Please delete your post now, as it's not your thread, and is about a different case.

You will need your own new thread but NOT YET PLEASE.

Only when you get the POPLA code from P/Eye which will follow if you are unsuccessful in your efforts at getting the retailer/landowner to cancel (easy and vital route to try first).

No thread now please, there is nothing more to say at this stage!