PCN Appeal to IAS? ES Parking Enforcement

Le_Kirk

Not sure why you have split your defence and then seemed to have repeated parts of it. Did you read some of the 17 pre-written defence examples, particularly those written by Bargepole? Otherwise you seem to have all the usual points. Part of the "Preliminary Matters" is written in the first person, whereas it should be third person (therefore no "I"). Also, if you are going to keep it in this format, all paragraphs require a sequential number.

Your point 2 in the actual defence makes mention of the car being parked "by the side of a road." Is it your contention that it was not parked in a car park? If so, you should say so and then you can provide reasoning and evidence in your witness statement later in the process.

Kingofspain2k1

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Not sure why you have split your defence and then seemed to have repeated parts of it. Did you read some of the 17 pre-written defence examples, particularly those written by Bargepole? Otherwise you seem to have all the usual points. Part of the "Preliminary Matters" is written in the first person, whereas it should be third person (therefore no "I"). Also, if you are going to keep it in this format, all paragraphs require a sequential number.

Your point 2 in the actual defence makes mention of the car being parked "by the side of a road." Is it your contention that it was not parked in a car park? If so, you should say so and then you can provide reasoning and evidence in your witness statement later in the process.

I take your points regarding the formatting and structure. Perhaps it will be better if I merge and move everything from the PRELIMINARY MATTERS to the end of the DEFENCE? Therefore ending on the abuse of process issues?

The PCN I received was for stopping in a no stopping zone. Nothing to do with car parks or parking spaces. I was trying to make the point that I hadn't stopped in a way that was blocking the right of way for vehicles on the road. I pulled into a lay by to pick up my girlfriend (the two photos in the PCN are three seconds apart and clearly show her waiting by the car in the first one, and getting into the car in the second photo). At the same time I am trying to keep it vague so I don't admit I was driving the vehicle at the time.

I read many of the pre-written examples, but couldn't see any in relation to no stopping offences. I took bits here and there from what I felt might be relevant.

The council has since come back to me with the following:

"We refer to your email dated 4.01.2020 in relation to the above, our records indicate that Gartside Street is adopted. Records also show a length of the street is subject to a legal closure order dated 27.03.2002."

Should I add this to the defence? That it's not relevant land, and the parking company can't issue private tickets, it has to issue council-authorised tickets, quoting the Traffic Management Act?

Coupon-mad

Remove all of the stuff in PRELIMINARY MATTERS. It's just waffle!

between 20:04:50 and 20:04:53

Three seconds stopping?! If so, go MUCH more to town about that in the next points #3 and admit to driving if it was you, as your position will be strong. You can remove your para #3 and change it to one re a lack of grace period, and breach of the IPC CoP.

You've not included anything from post #14 of the Abuse of Process thread by beamerguy. I wrote it to include in defences, and an example of how that can be done is in basher52's thread where I wrote a defence that others can alter to suit & copy from the second half of it. Take a look. No link given, you have the member's name!

Kingofspain2k1

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Remove all of the stuff in PRELIMINARY MATTERS. It's just waffle!

Three seconds stopping?! If so, go MUCH more to town about that in the next points #3 and admit to driving if it was you, as your position will be strong. You can remove your para #3 and change it to one re a lack of grace period, and breach of the IPC CoP.

You've not included anything from post #14 of the Abuse of Process thread by beamerguy. I wrote it to include in defences, and an example of how that can be done is in basher52's thread where I wrote a defence that others can alter to suit & copy from the second half of it. Take a look. No link given, you have the member's name!

Thanks, I'm reading those now and integrating where possible into my defence.

I'm wary of admitting to being the driver as I do not know currently what other evidence they hold, especially in relation to the mystery offence on 23/07/2019. What if the photos are taken 5 minutes apart instead of 5 seconds? How long could a grace period be for a no stopping zone picking someone up from outside their work?

Also bargepole's list of what NOT to include mentions the keeper/driver issue... I've read POFA and have deduced that because no notice was given to the driver at all, EPSE has no right to pursue the keeper (me) for the claim? I don't want to !!!! off a judge by including an irrelevant defence!

KeithP

Kingofspain2k1 wrote: »

I've read POFA and have deduced that because no notice was given to the driver at all, EPSE has no right to pursue the keeper (me) for the claim?

POFA says no such thing. You have arrived at the wrong conclusion.

Coupon-mad

What if the photos are taken 5 minutes apart instead of 5 seconds? How long could a grace period be for a no stopping zone picking someone up from outside their work?

At least 10 mins is if it's a place where parking is allowed.

If it is a place where they are pretending there is no stopping (and we know Spinningfields, there are lots of posts about that place, and Parking Prankster blogs about it too!) then they will pretend they can issue an immediate PCN but of course their case falls down on non existent signage terms.

Always did, and still will, with Spinningfields.

You are better leaving the driver vague then, but what you say about the POFA is not correct. There is a route to issue PCNs by post but I doubt they will win at Manchester anyway, and DJ Iyer could well kick these PCNs out without a hearing if he looks at it this year!

Kingofspain2k1

KeithP wrote: »

POFA says no such thing. You have arrived at the wrong conclusion.

My mistake... I missed the section around the requirement to notify the driver ceasing to apply after the 28 day period.

From what I can tell the PCN that I received includes the correct wording as per para 9 of Schedule 4 of POFA. I will remove the paragraphs from my defence relating to the pursuit of me as keeper of the vehicle.

Kingofspain2k1

Coupon-mad wrote: »

At least 10 mins is if it's a place where parking is allowed.

If it is a place where they are pretending there is no stopping (and we know Spinningfields, there are lots of posts about that place, and Parking Prankster blogs about it too!) then they will pretend they can issue an immediate PCN but of course their case falls down on non existent signage terms.

Always did, and still will, with Spinningfields.

You are better leaving the driver vague then, but what you say about the POFA is not correct. There is a route to issue PCNs by post but I doubt they will win at Manchester anyway, and DJ Iyer could well kick these PCNs out without a hearing if he looks at it this year!

Yes it is one of those "no stopping at all" areas with the Borrowers size signs! As you can imagine I've avoided the street in question entirely ever since I got my hands on the PCN.

Coupon-mad

Have you Googled it and read all the cases the Parking Prankster reported were won?

Kingofspain2k1

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Have you Googled it and read all the cases the Parking Prankster reported were won?

I have found one.
ES Parking v Limited Company C2GF3D6K 18/1/17 Manchester

The judge ruled in favour of the Defendant on a number of items but the parts relevant to my case are...

The judge also stated a contract was not made as there were no signs on the road entrance and that the signs submitted as evidence did not match the photos submitted by the defence.

The judge also ruled the signage is incorrect - the signs state that the private land is managed by ES Parking Enforcement Ltd but it is not, the land is managed by Spinningfields Estate... there are no signs at the entrance to say "private road" or "no entry" The ES Witness statement claimed the signs were positioned "where bound to be seen" - the judge looked at the defences clear colour photos and concluded they were not bound to be seen. The judge also asked why the signs were at the maximum height allowed.

The sign state "Non-payment will result in additional charges" ES were asking for £50 - the judge ruled this was excessive.

Shall I include this case reference and paraphrase the judge or do I need to be able to quote verbatim with the full case name?