Lots of PCNs Received from CEL !

shmy

Okay, I will have a better look in the newbies thread and bargepole with link provided.

How can informing your local MP help?

Le_Kirk

Go HERE and scroll down until you see: -

Here are some cases won or in progress:

Here is a defence I suggested for a case where a RingGo app carried forward a default VRN for the wrong car, so that the driver was not at fault and the inaccuracy came from the PPC's app:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74836178#Comment_74836178

................then keep scrolling to find more defences for different scenarios

KeithP

I've just edited post #9 above to correct your Defence filing date to:

...you have until 4pm on Tuesday 23rd April 2019 to file your Defence.

This is because Monday 22nd April is a Bank Holiday.

You can now spend the whole of Easter weekend working on it.

Coupon-mad

In the hope that somebody can point me towards a defence.

You already were:

Redx wrote: »

as for a defence , read the ones in post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread , especially the ones by BARGEPOLE , and adapt one

Then I added:

You've been advised to use bargepole's version as your base, like everyone does, then just add your facts (why not read some other claim/defence threads and see how other newbies handled that)?

shmy

Hi Guys

Over the weekend I have been looking through many threads and defences for my information.

Below is my defence please can you guys have a look and shed some light. I know its close to the deadline in fact its tomorrow at 4 pm!. Apologies for this!

My main argument will be the poor condition the car park is in. The parking lines are very faded and barley noticeable, huge pot holes all around. Its clearly not up to standard ! Am i right on this? Thats the reason I picked this defence and added a little extra to make mention of the condition.

Also, Ive noticed on my other PCNs from CEL the address shown of the carpark in question shows up as another car park a few blocks away on google. However the sign at the car park shows the same name and address as on the PCN. Is this something that can work in my favor if outside the ordinary?

In The County Court
Claim No: Presented on the court letter
Between
Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

My Name (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts of the matter is The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively large number of poorly marked ‘private land’ parking spaces. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where the driver can park in this car park, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

3. Due to the lack of maintenance the parking surface is badly damaged, unsafe and a potential hazard.

4. Due to the lack of facts, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or the driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

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. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £67 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.

7. The Defendant disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs as no evidence provided.

8. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Statement of Truth:

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

Name
Signature
Date

Umkomaas

If the three parking tickets were overstay/no payment ones via ANPR capture, there will be no ‘penalty’ attaching to anything to do with a badly delineated car park (or potholes), the driver was aware of these on entry, yet still decided to park. I don’t think a defence based around those is going to help you.

You need to expand the ‘Signage’ section to question the signage content and whether that can form a contract.

Have you studied other recent CEL defences and copied appropriate sections from them. Do a forum search on keywords CEL Defence’ and read some of those.

HOW TO USE THE FORUM SEARCH FUNCTION:

Hit your 'Back' button to get back to the forum thread list. On the bar just above the threads you'll see the 'Search' function. Click on the 'Advanced Search' button and on the following page place your keyword(s) in the 'Search By Keyword(s)' and make sure the 'Show Results As' button (at the foot of the window) is changed from 'Threads' to 'Posts'.

Coupon-mad

for the 2nd and 3rd PCNs the payment machine was out of order. 3 in total.

But is this defence just for the first one, as they've only issued a claim for that one so far? So what happened and how long was the car there, just 12 minutes or something, caught by ANPR, or why did the driver not pay at the machine that time if they actually stopped and parked?

Your defence doesn't explain it.

''poorly marked ‘private land’ parking spaces'' has not relevance if this was for non-payment.

shmy

You need to expand the ‘Signage’ section to question the signage content and whether that can form a contract.

Im not sure if there is anything wrong with the signage at this car park, or any areas to exploit regarding the signage.

But is this defence just for the first one, as they've only issued a claim for that one so far? So what happened and how long was the car there, just 12 minutes or something, caught by ANPR, or why did the driver not pay at the machine that time if they actually stopped and parked?

This defence is for the first one.
It was a while ago, but from what I can recall I overstayed at the car park after paying for an hour only.
I entered the car park at 15:42 and exited at 16:59. So thats 12 mins of overstay (I think) driver caught by ANPR.
How shall I put this in writing? im really worried I have to submit this by tomorrow!

Coupon-mad

I entered the car park at 15:42 and exited at 16:59. So that's 12 mins of overstay (I think) driver caught by ANPR.

Whoa I must be psychic! I asked:

How long was the car there, just 12 minutes or something

I am amazed you haven't read enough (or simply checked the BPA Code of Practice to catch the scammers out) to realise you were covered by the mandatory BPA grace periods and need to include that in your defence! The fact that the driver paid for the hour parked, and the other minutes either side were not parking time but in moving traffic and fully covered by the mandatory grace periods either side of paid-for time.

Please use these search terms to find the sort of defence you needed to read:

BPA grace periods PDT machine defence true

One of the results would be the defence by Theopop, a thread I've just replied on so it's back at the top of the forum, as I type.

shmy

MY updated Defence Draft below


In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
UKCPS Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (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 XXXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay at XXXXXXX, after the Defendant had paid for a ticket.

3. The Particulars of Claim also state that the driver of the vehicle incurred the parking charges for breaching the terms of parking on the land. The particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct

4. 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. A large information board located outside of the car park does not explicitly state the terms of what will incur a fine, and making no mention of any penalty in large lettering. The PDT machine itself did not mention £100 on the tariff list, which is a misleading omission of relevant facts, contrary to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, which protects consumers from unfair or misleading trading practices and bans misleading omissions and aggressive sales tactics. Therefore, it is denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of binding a driver to any £100 charge.

5. The original demand letter showed photographs of the Defendant's car entering and exiting the car park, with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) timings suggesting that the vehicle had stayed for one hour and twelve minutes. The length of time that was actually paid for is not stated anywhere on any of the letters or documentation, therefore the Defendant is required to guess that the allegation is of a twelve minute overstay. In this case, the Claimant has not allowed a reasonable observation period and grace period (either side of paid-for time) in flagrant disregard for The British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice.
The BPA Code of Practice states the following regarding grace periods:
“13.2 and 30.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.”
“13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.

6. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes. The whole point of these grace periods is to allow drivers time to find a parking space and to read the signage prior to commencement of the period of parking, and time to exit the car park once they have finished parking.


7. 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.

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. The Defendant disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs as no evidence provided.

10. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Statement of Truth:

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

Name
Signature
Date