Ignored PCN for 3 months, should I write to them?

Random101

KeithP wrote: »

With a Claim Issue Date of 18th July, you have until Tuesday 6th August to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 20th August 2019 to file your Defence.

That's a month away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Okay thank you. I'm just not sure that my defense is very strong. All I can say is that I was given incorrect information. Even if at the time I had noticed that the permit was valid for one day only, I wouldn't have argued with the issuer of the permit who told me it would be fine for the duration of my stay.

Coupon-mad

Sounds like a decent defence - search the forum for promissory estoppel defence.

No paying it, no phoning them, no offering money and no hoping it will go away.

These claims are easy enough to deal with and 99% of people here win.

Random101

I have submitted an AoS, and have started writing my defence.
Any feedback would be appreciated, and thank you all for your help so far!

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

-and-
Random101 (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 are that the Defendant is was visiting a friend on the weekend of the alleged contravention. Upon arrival (evening of 08/02/19), a parking permit was issued, where the issuer of the permit asked the duration of the Defendants stay. The issuer was informed that the Defendant would be staying until the morning of 10/02/19, a parking permit was issued upon receipt of this information. It should also be noted that the Defendant left the car park at approximately 10am (15 mins after the fine was issued).

3. Furthermore, the car park was unlit and due to the time of arrival, it was difficult to read any signs, as well as the permit issued. Consequently, the defendant was unaware that they had entered a car park which was operated by VCS.

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. 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.

6. 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

KeithP

But no mention of promissory estoppel - as suggested by Coupon-mad?

Random101

KeithP wrote: »

But no mention of promissory estoppel - as suggested by Coupon-mad?

All I could find is this:

It is my position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter.

Is that enough to add in?

Coupon-mad

No, it needs a sentence or two explaining the promise made, then that sentence.

The ticket said to go online to myparkingcharge and pay the fine.

It wasn't a fine and wasn't even a PCN, was it? Sounds like VCS' typical red card in an envelope misleading saying 'this is not a parking charge'.

If I am right you could just copy & adapt the VCS hybrid PCN example in the NEWBIES thread, and add your facts about the permission and promise for the weekend's parking/promissory estoppel.

Random101

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It wasn't a fine and wasn't even a PCN, was it? Sounds like VCS' typical red card in an envelope misleading saying 'this is not a parking charge'.

If I am right you could just copy & adapt the VCS hybrid PCN example in the NEWBIES thread, and add your facts about the permission and promise for the weekend's parking/promissory estoppel.

Just had a look at the red card and you're right, it says "this is not a parking charge".
Thank you, will update my defence tomorrow.

Random101

Here's my second attempt at a defence, I have put in Bold the parts I have added.

Thanks again for everyones help so far!!

In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
VCS (Claimant)
-and-
Random101 (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 are that the Defendant is was visiting a friend on the weekend of the alleged contravention. Upon arrival (evening of 08/02/19), a parking permit was issued, where the issuer of the permit asked the duration of the Defendants stay. The issuer was informed that the Defendant would be staying until the morning of 10/02/19, a parking permit was issued upon receipt of this information. It should also be noted that the Defendant left the car park at
approximately 10am (15 mins after the Parking Charge Notice was issued).

2.1 Based on the above, it is my position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter. As once the Defendant was issued a permit, this came with the promise of a parking space for the weekend.

3. Furthermore, the car park was unlit and due to the time of arrival, it was difficult to read any signs, as well as the permit issued. Consequently, the Defendant was unaware that they had entered a car park which was operated by VCS.
4. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in an envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

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 £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.
7. It should also be noted that, the Defendant made two attempts to contact the Claimant, in attempt to resolve the situation without the need for court intervention. However, both times the Defendant was ignored.

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

KeithP

Change the word fine for Parking Charge Notice.

Random101

KeithP wrote: »

Change the word fine for Parking Charge Notice.

Done, thank you