PCM Parking ticket Draft Defence

eva16006159

ShakeItOff wrote: »

Don't worry - me too! It's one of those things that you don't need to know until you need to know

But yes, that is essentially what you've done. You'll see in the Bargepole defences that they're actually quite short, and are entirely legal argument, not the "story" argument (WS).

With the defence, you need to make sure that any argument you wish to rely on at the hearing is included - it is costly to add to the defence.

Ok, I will take a stab at splitting these tomorrow. Do I submit the witness statement after the defence? In which case I will focus on the defence for now.

ShakeItOff

Yes, the Witness Statement is submitted to both the court and the claimant a minimum of 14 days before the hearing, but your defence must be sent by 4pm on 25th March, as per KeithP's post above.

eva16006159

Updated below

Coupon-mad

That isn't based on bargepole's concise defence. Even the statement of truth is wrong:

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

Please just go back to read the second post of the NEWBIES thread, and find bargepole's concise defence.

Use that as your base and then just add one paragraph about the facts, near the start.

While you are there, please ALSO read bargepole's 'know what happens when' post.

eva16006159

I have gone through the thread again and based my new draft on bargepoles posts:

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant is not the registered keeper but was a named driver on an insurance policy for vehicle registration number ##### on the material date. This registration number does not belong to the vehicle identified but a different vehicle. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all and refutes any agreement to make payment.

2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant entered the site, #########, on the material day and parked in what appeared to be a bay on the road side for a period not exceeding 10 minutes. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of poorly marked ‘private land’ parking spaces located along the roadside. There is no clear signage on entering the site to denote any change of road and parking regulations, from those detailed in The Highways Act (1980) and the vehicle was parked in a way which cause no obstruction to vehicles or pedestrians. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where is, or is not, acceptable to park in this area, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

3. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

5. Further and in the alternative, 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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
7. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.

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.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Coupon-mad

That's much better!

But I don't understand what you are saying here, and IMHO nor will a Judge:

The Defendant is not the registered keeper but was a named driver on an insurance policy for vehicle registration number ##### on the material date. This registration number does not belong to the vehicle identified but a different vehicle.

And I think you need a point about grace periods, like here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5879817/bw-legal-lbc&page=3

...and don't call a period of under ten minutes 'parking'. Call it 'briefly stopped' (or loading/unloading or collecting a passenger if that was the true activity):

eva16006159

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That's much better!

But I don't understand what you are saying here, and IMHO nor will a Judge:
]]And I think you need a point about grace periods, like here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5879817/bw-legal-lbc&page=3

...and don't call a period of under ten minutes 'parking'. Call it 'briefly stopped' (or loading/unloading or collecting a passenger if that was the true activity):

What I was trying to say was that I am not registered keeper but didnt want to admit to being the driver if i could avoid it. The last bit relates to the vehicle being referred to as a Mercedes in their paperwork but it isn't.

Coupon-mad

So maybe this?

1. The Defendant was one of the keepers (but not the registered keeper) of the vehicle with registration number ##### on the material date. It is noted that the vehicle is referred to as a Mercedes in the Claimant's paperwork, casting doubt over the veracity of their evidence, and being typical of the lack of any relevant checks and balances made when rushing to file a cut&paste batch of robo-claims. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all and refutes any agreement to make payment.

eva16006159

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So maybe this?

That is much better! Thank you so much for your help. I have now updated to add that section and a section on grace periods:

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1.The Defendant was one of the keepers (but not the registered keeper) of the vehicle with registration number ##### on the material date. It is noted that the vehicle is referred to as a Mercedes in the Claimant's paperwork, casting doubt over the veracity of their evidence, and being typical of the lack of any relevant checks and balances made when rushing to file a cut & paste batch of robo-claims. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all and refutes any agreement to make payment.

2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant entered the site, #######, on the material day and briefly stopped in what appeared to be a bay on the road side for a period not exceeding 10 minutes. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of poorly marked ‘private land’ parking spaces located along the roadside. There is no clear signage on entering the site to denote any change of road and parking regulations, from those detailed in The Highways Act (1980) and the vehicle was parked in a way which caused no obstruction to vehicles or pedestrians. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where is, or is not, acceptable to park in this area, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

3. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. The IPC code of conduct B15.1 states that a grace period must be allowed in order that a driver might spot signage, go up to it, read it and then decide whether to accept the terms or not. A reasonable grace period in any car park would be up to 15 minutes from the period of stopping. This grace period could not have been observed as the vehicle was on site for no more than 10 minutes. Therefore, the operator is in breach of the industry code of practice. Additionally, no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses.

5. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

6. Further and in the alternative, 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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

7. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

8. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.

9. 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.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

eva16006159

Would this now be ready for submission?