PCM Parking ticket Draft Defence

KeithP

You still have a month to file your Defence.

Maybe see if others comment over the next week or so.

There is nothing to be gained by early filing.

eva16006159

KeithP wrote: »

You still have a month to file your Defence.

Maybe see if others comment over the next week or so.

There is nothing to be gained by early filing.

Makes sense, thanks!

KeithP

Just bump it every now and again... like wot I have just done.

eva16006159

Is there anyone else out there with any advice? Thank you is advance!

eva16006159

Thank you for all the advice, I am going to run with the following unless I receive any further comment:

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.

Le_Kirk

If it is based on one of Bargepole's concise defences (NEWBIE section post # 2) AND it answers all the points raised in the POC, then it is (in my non-lawyer opinion) ready. I think you might want to look at your point 1. Do you know for a fact that it is: -

typical of the lack of any relevant checks and balances made when rushing to file a cut & paste batch of robo-claims.

Maybe use "could be typical" or similar wording, unless of course you have evidence that you will supply with your Witness Statement.

nosferatu1001

You ha ve to, at a minimm
- accept every part of their PoC OR
- deny every part of their PoC OR
- say why you cannot accept or deny and state why

If you dont do this for eveery element, then any element you miss you are deemed to have accepted.

KeithP

Will change username now!

What happened with that?

eva16006159

KeithP wrote: »

What happened with that?

I have requested MSE to change it, I will chase it up.

eva16006159

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

You ha ve to, at a minimm
- accept every part of their PoC OR
- deny every part of their PoC OR
- say why you cannot accept or deny and state why

If you dont do this for eveery element, then any element you miss you are deemed to have accepted.

Their particulars of claim are a bit of a rant but basically say that the driver of the vehicle parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage thus incurring the parking charge. It says the driver agreed to pay within 28 days and failed to do so. Then a bit about failing to settle despite demands and some stuff about extra costs.

I think I've addressed all that in my defence above?