Claim Form Received (UK CPM) - Update 30/01/2019

nosferatu1001

2.4. It is denied, and confirmed by evidence supplied by the claimant that the vehicle was parked in a “car park”. Instead the vehicle had stoppped on a roadway. The PCN uses multiple contradictory terms such as “No Parking on Access Roads/Roadways" despite previously claiming in the PCN that the defendant was parked in a car park. The Claimant has failed to specify the land in question or identify a single cause of action.

Or similar to that.

airborne350

Final:


N THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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 XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears to be parked on the material date: it was not parked on any yellow lines nor causing an obstruction to any traffic.

3. The defendant is an observant and reasonable individual who has made the actions only of a reasonable individual in this case.

4. The claimants road markings at the time of the claim must be defined as inadequate and not permissible in forming a binding contract, as at the time of the claim in January 2018 no road markings were present in-line with the highway code to dissuade a reasonable person from parking in the location. Furthermore, Evidence gathered by the claimant in June 2018 highlights that still no road markings existed in the location of the issued PCN. As of January 2019 further evidence has been gathered which clearly highlights the previously inadequate and impermissible markings, as there are now double yellow lines marking the entire area in question.

5. At no point is it made clear at the location of the claim that a vehicle is entering private land, or that this stretch of road is different from the public highway. There was no signage or highway code markings which provide adequate understanding for a reasonable person that they are either on private land or the public highway. The business park which is the scene of the claim is a major through-road and is not marked to ensure motorists are aware of being on private land, away from the public highway at the time of the issued PCN.

6. It is denied, and confirmed by evidence supplied by the claimant that the vehicle was parked in a “car park”. Instead the vehicle had stopped on a roadway. The PCN uses multiple contradictory terms such as “No Parking on Access Roads/Roadways" despite previously claiming in the PCN that the defendant was parked in a car park. The Claimant has failed to specify the land in question or identify a single cause of action.

7. The claimants signage is ambiguous and provides confusion, as the symbol used by the claimant on their signage is the highway code symbol for parking (A white P on a blue background is used by the claimant), which, to a reasonable person acting reasonably shall usually assume that parking exists to some extent in a location. The defendant has sought examples of parking signs, none of which used by the claimant highlight “no parking” in-line with the highway code guidance and symbology.

8. At the time of issue, and since with further evidence gathered, there is no signage displayed on the side of the road that the vehicle was parked in the vicinity of the location. This is misleading the motorist that parking was not permitted in the location in question. Furthermore, and in-line with the photo displayed by the claimant on the original PCN, the signage is unreadable from the location the vehicle was parked.

9. Ambiguity exists consistently in the location, as vehicles apparently exempt from the terms outlined by the claimant continually park in the specific location outlined in the claim. As a result it is not clear to a motorist that the area is in fact bound by the claimants terms, due to the consistent parking by exempt vehicles creating confusion as to the status of the land in question. At the time of issue, and clear in the image, other vehicles are parked in this location and have since continued to do.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.





Name
Signature
Date

airborne350

My defence about to go.

Is it still worth submitting a SAR having not done so to date?

Thanks

nosferatu1001

Of course it is!
That way you know EVERY document they have that relates to you, and they cant ambush you with a new photo youve not seen before, for example.

airborne350

Thanks, that's done.

What are the chances of it going all the way from this point?

Thanks.

Redx

airborne350 wrote: »

Thanks, that's done.

What are the chances of it going all the way from this point?

Thanks.

depends if they pay the court fee or not !!


so no way of knowing

airborne350

Thanks!

Submitted.

Do I also login to MCOL and submit through there, or is the post from KeithP covering this as equivalent?

Thanks

Le_Kirk

If you have submitted by e-mail as KeithP says, you only need to go to MCOL to check it has been received.

KeithP

airborne350 wrote: »

Do I also login to MCOL and submit through there, or is the post from KeithP covering this as equivalent?

But post #2 of the NEWBIES thread explains exactly why you should not submit a Defence via MCOL.

airborne350

Pleasant reply received from the landowner's management company (not parking company). OK to send them the PCN with a view to looking at scrubbing it?