Parking Ticket Defense Help

Coupon-mad

MrGrass77 wrote: »

Thanks for the info and I was not aware I could park on DYL for 5 mins to pick up or drop off something quickly.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/695793/operational-guidance.pdf

This is based on the law, the Traffic Management Act and this is what DYL and single yellows are for (AS LONG AS THERE ARE NO KERB BLIPS) and loading bays too (as long as the sign doesn't say commercial vehicles only).

Page 45:

8.57 The rules for loading and unloading differ from those for other parking activities. Traffic orders that restrict or prohibit waiting in a street usually exempt the loading or unloading of goods. The precise nature of such an exemption will depend on the terms of the order. Some authorities designate on-street parking places just for loading. Where waiting for the purpose of loading is prohibited or restricted, the traffic signs and road markings must show the extent of the prohibition or restriction.

8.58 Loading or unloading must be continuous while the vehicle is parked in restricted areas. It is therefore important to clarify to CEOs that loading or unloading includes taking goods to where the recipient may reasonably be taken to require them in the premises, waiting for them to be checked, getting delivery or collection documents signed and returning to the vehicle. Delivery staff are expected to secure their vehicle when they are not with it and a vehicle can legitimately be locked during some of these stages. Once the delivery process is complete, however, the driver must move the vehicle even if it is within the maximum period allowed for loading or unloading.

To be clear, these are the rules for ON STREET loading/unloading. This is what I am trying to tell people to do! I really wish more drivers knew this and stopped driving into scammers' car parks just for a 5-20 minute collection of something, which would be FREE and exempt, if they parked briefly on street.

I wish people didn't think it's illegal to stop on a DYL!

I hate those Daily Mail articles when they rant WRONGLY about parents 'parking illegally' on a DYL to escort a young child into primary school. Jeez, that's the right place to stop for that activity...it's exempt, like loading!

Just to clarify there are two surgery's on two different floors with the Pharmacy below them on the ground floor. I use the Hollybank sugery not Burton croft but im sure the info/rules for both would be the same.

I will have had to call into the surgery to pick up the prescription from reception before going to the Pharmacy to collect it so I have no problem with that aspect.

Even better.

You must mention this is your defence and take a screenshot and print off that page I linked NOW (even though you do not serve any evidence yet with a defence) in case they change the website. Have it ready in your file of evidence, for Witness Statement and evidence filing stage pre-hearing.

You are exempt according to the surgeries' rules and the parking firm are misinterpreting those rules by letting some untrained over-excited self ticketer (I reckon it is a self ticketer, not the parking firm) issue PCNs for a £10 bounty, I expect, against the wishes of the surgery AND with no knowledge of the Equality Act 2010.

Asthma IS a protected characteristic/disability and the surgery knew or should have known that by expecting you to collect a prescription from across the road and that you meet the definition of disability (because they hold your medical records) then you WERE lawfully entitled to use their private disabled bay provision, which is not solely governed by any 'permit' or blue badge. It's a provision in accordance with the Equality Act 2010 and they cannot lawfully limit its use by disabled people who meet the definition and have the need to park nearby to stop their asthma from worsening.

The EqAct even has a section stating that 'limiting or restricting' a disability provision is illegal and that any term attempting to do so would be 'unenforceable'. A surgery should know better and can't say some people are more disabled than others (on street a Blue Badge has a statutory meaning, but on private land the EqAct is King).

BTW is the PCN for 'parking in a disabled bay' or 'leaving the site'?

MrGrass77

The PCN was for using the disabled bay without a blue badge as I didnt leave the site and only used it briefly as I picked up my prescription

I finally got through to the actual landowner today and explained the situation. She agreed to cancel it after explaining the situation (thanks to all the help on here for how to articulate things) but was concerned it may have gone too far into the process.for her to be able to do so

The firm got back to her quickly and advised as it hadnt been sent to court they would cancel it (they moaned about a £25 admin fee but thats their own fault) so looks like everything is sorted.

The only part I am not sure on and want to be careful about is ensuring it is cancelled. I presume I will be able to check on the CCBC website or call them to check the PNC has actually withdrawn the case but not sure how long this will take.

Hopefully this is all sorted but thanks to everyone who has helped with advice on this thread and for the general advice on the newbies thread. Both have been a massive help

MrGrass77

Hi,

As I am still awaiting confirmation the claim has been withdrawn and I am away on holiday from next week I am preparing a defence in case required when I get back. I have adapted a template from the Newbies thread and added some of my specific details so would appreciate feedback and advice to ensure i get this right.

The CCBC advised me to write the first paragraph about the verbal agreement to cancel the claim but would appreciate views on this and any suggestions on better wording

On section 3 the template had the following text: !!!8220 & !!!8221. Should this just be removed, should something replace it or should it be left as it is as Im unsure on this

Section 7 & 8 have been fully constructed by me (Im sure its not hard to tell) so I would appreciate and help with get the wording correct on this.

As i have adapted it and added my own points do all the sections make sense together and read in the best order?

Finally I have not mentioned about my broken foot and that only disabled bays were free as I am relying on the fact that I was entitled to use the disabled bay and the signage was not good enough. Should I mention the situation of my foot increasing the need to use the disabled bay or was I correct in leaving out.

As always I appreciate any help people can offer

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UKCPS Ltd

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________


Following a telephone conversation with the landowner xxxxxxx, she agreed to request the claimant UKCPS withdraw the claim. She contacted me back to confirm the Claimant had agreed to this and taken action to do so. I therefore do not expect this to progress further but until I get official confirmation through the CCBC website that the claim is withdrawn I have continued to outline my defense below


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, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Company XXXX at XXXX Business Park, and had a valid reason to be parked in that bay.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, 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.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, 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 any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

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 terms on the website of Burton Croft Surgery state that patients of Burton Croft Surgery and Hollybank Surgery are entitled to use the car park for visiting the surgeries and for use of the attached Pharmacy following a visit to the surgery. Patients should vacate the car park as soon as soon as the visit is complete, and patients should not use the car park for shopping or any other purposes either before or after the visit. The defendant used the car park to visit the surgery to pick up an Asthma prescription and then collect the prescription from the Pharmacy. The defendant left the car park immediately after collecting the prescription and is therefore exempt according to the surgeries rules

8 The particulars of claim state the defendant parked in a marked disabled bay without a blue badge on display and therefore without valid reason. The defendant suffers from the medical condition Asthma which is a protected characteristic/disability and the surgery knew or should have known that the defendant meets the definition of disability (because they hold the defendant’s medical records). The Defendant was therefore lawfully entitled to use their private disabled bay provision, which is not solely governed by any ‘permit’ or blue badge. It is a provision in accordance with the Equality Act 2010 and they cannot lawfully limit it’s use by disabled people who meet the definition and have the need to park nearby to stop their asthma from worsening

9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.

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. 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Umkomaas

The only part I am not sure on and want to be careful about is ensuring it is cancelled. I presume I will be able to check on the CCBC website or call them to check the PNC has actually withdrawn the case but not sure how long this will take.

Why not go to the UKCPS website PCN payment portal as if you were going to pay the charge. Log in and check for the PCN's current status.

KeithP

On section 3 the template had the following text: !!!8220 & !!!8221. Should this just be removed, should something replace it or should it be left as it is as Im unsure on this

Replace those with quotation marks.

The sentence should then look like:

The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant "was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)".

This is due to a bug in the forum software that was present a year of more ago.

MrGrass77

Thanks ive been wary about interacting with UKCPS but thats a good idea which I will do

MrGrass77

KeithP wrote: »

Replace those with quotation marks.

The sentence should then look like:

The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant "was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)".

This is due to a bug in the forum software that was present a year of more ago.

Thanks, makes sense

Coupon-mad

This should be point #1 and in the third person, like this, and defence has no 's':

1. Following a telephone conversation with the landowner xxxxxxx, she agreed to request the claimant UKCPS withdraw the claim. [STRIKE]She contacted me back to[/STRIKE] The landowner has taken on board the Equality Act exemption and rights of the Defendant and has confirmed that the Claimant had agreed to this and taken action to discontinue this claim[STRIKE]do so[/STRIKE]. [STRIKE]I therefore do[/STRIKE] The Defendant does not expect this to progress further but until [STRIKE]I get official confirmation through the CCBC website that the claim is withdrawn[/STRIKE] it is shown as officially discontinued [STRIKE]I have[/STRIKE] the Defendant has continued to outline [STRIKE]my defense[/STRIKE]
a defence below.

Then this becomes #2, and adjust all the other paragraph numbers:

2. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

Remove this as it doesn't relate to your case:

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.

And two typos here, in what will be #9 and #10 once renumbered:

8 The particulars of claim state the defendant parked in a marked disabled bay without a blue badge on display and therefore without valid reason. The defendant suffers from the medical condition Asthma which is a protected characteristic/disability and the surgery knew or should have known that the defendant meets the definition of disability (because they hold the defendant’s medical records). The Defendant was therefore lawfully entitled to use their private disabled bay provision, which is not solely governed by any ‘permit’ or blue badge. It is a provision in accordance with the Equality Act 2010 and they cannot lawfully limit it’s use by disabled people who meet the definition and have the need to park nearby to stop their asthma from worsening

9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.

Sounds like you have won though!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST! :T

MrGrass77

Coupon-mad wrote: »

This should be point #1 and in the third person, like this, and defence has no 's':


Then this becomes #2, and adjust all the other paragraph numbers:

Remove this as it doesn't relate to your case:


And two typos here, in what will be #9 and #10 once renumbered:


Sounds like you have won though!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST! :T

Thanks for the help with the wording