Parking Charge Notice issued at Sennen Cove Beach car park for not displaying a valid ticket

Redx

I hope you will adapt the template defence from the newbies thread

The unreasonable aspect won't work unless you demonstrate that it's a Penalty , aka part of the detail in the Beavis case , also de minimis , a trifling matter , the tariff was paid , the bought ticket is not fit for purpose etc. The claimant should have cancelled the PCN when proof of purchase was used by the driver defendant in their 2 appeals

Check what the signage says about displaying the ticket , or doesn't say about it

No landowner authority , poor and inadequate signage etc should also feature in a driver based Defence , as should any other legal point

As KeithP says above , it's too early for the AOS yet

KeithP

Redx said:

As KeithP says above , it's too early for the AOS yet

No Redx, I didn't say that.

Because it is after 4pm on Friday, anything filed now or on Saturday or Sunday will be accepted with Monday's date - 9th November.

Grungewart

OK. Thanks both.  AoS done and I'm reading through Armtrac fluttering ticket defence threads.

Grungewart

I've read through quite a few threads and I'm now thinking of this followed by points 4 to 18 of the October 2020 template defence.  I'm a little concerned that I can't find online results for County Court Judgements though so I'm not sure if I've missed something that I should be checking to confirm the cases quoted are relevant.

1.    The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.    It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

3.    On entering the carpark the Defendant purchased a ticket to park for the full day.  The Defendant then used the provided sticky backing to affix the ticket so that all details were clearly visible and legible.  The Defendant subsequently secured the vehicle and ensured that the ticket was still attached and clearly visible before leaving the car park.

3.1 The ticket was to the full knowledge of the Defendant at the time, in place the right way up and visible when the car was locked and left parked. The Defendant has no knowledge of the point at which the ticket moved out of sight or why, but made all reasonable endeavours, and complied by conduct.

3.2 The Defendant cannot be responsible for the possibility that:
a) A gust of wind may have later dislodged the ticket, despite the windows & doors being locked.
b) The heat of the sun may have softened the sticky backing, allowing the ticket to become dislodged under it's own weight.
c) The employee of the Claimant may have caused the ticket to become dislodged, perhaps accidentally when leaning across the car or pushing between vehicles. No suggestion of foul play is intended.
d) A passer-by may have leaned on the car, when squeezing between the small bays to get to their own vehicle.

3.3 None of the above scenarios are within a driver's control (the Defendant was by that time, absent from the location) and it is evident that someone else – or a factor outside anyone's control – was to blame. This appears to have been a case of casus fortuitus "chance occurrence, unavoidable accident", which is a doctrine that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties renders the contract frustrated.

3.4 The Claimant does not dispute that the Defendant purchased a ticket that gave a licence to park for the entire day.

3.5    The signage on this site at the time of parking does not make it clear that the Defendant is expected to take responsibility for the continued display of the ticket in their absence.

3.6 The Court is invited to consider the fairness of the position in this case, which appears to cause significant imbalance in the rights of a consumer, to their detriment, and the Defendant relies on Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act.

4.    Evidence of the valid parking ticket purchased before leaving the vehicle was provided to the Claimant when the Defendant first appealed the PCN on XX/XX/XXXX explaining what had happened and including a photographic copy of the ticket displayed on the day. The partial VRM visible on the ticket and time of expiry clearly confirm that the ticket was purchased for the vehicle in question before leaving the car park. This provided the Claimant with clear evidence that the defendant acted in good faith and made all reasonable endeavours to comply with the terms and condition (“T&C”) - as far as they were understood. The Claimant declined to confirm details of the ticket against any automated machine record which would have proved time of purchase and details of purchasing bank card.

4.1 This was an opportunity for the Claimant to act reasonably and cancel the charge.

4.2 The above constitutes a direct breach of Practice Direction pre-action conduct and protocols; specifically - paragraph 3 (Objectives), and 8 (Settlement and ADR). As such the court's attention is drawn to paragraphs 13 - 16.

5.    The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5

5.1    The claim particulars fail to specify how the terms of parking were breached and fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 by not including a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to parking charges incurred with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence; are not clear and concise as is required by CPR Part 16.4 1(a).

5.2    The Claimant and their solicitor are known to be a serial litigants and issuer of speculative claims, using template particulars of claim which arise from an automated template, with no due diligence.

5.3    In C3GF84Y2 (Mason, Plymouth County Court) [2016] the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

5.4    On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failed to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the claim was struck out.

Coupon-mad

I'd get rid of the whole of #5 but apart from that, it's fine.

Grungewart

Great.  Thanks.  Will get that sent off this evening then.

Grungewart

And just had the expected wind up letter from BW Legal telling me they haven't seen a response and they'll be applying for a decision against me which will result in a CCJ on my file for 6 years.......

Letter dated before I emailed defence to the county court.

MothballsWallet

Grungewart - you're definitely within your defence filing deadline?

In that case, what the ham sandwich are BW Legal up to? Is this a new tactic they have?

nosferatu1001

They're desperate.  That's all. 

MovedHouseDidntReceive

MothballsWallet said:

Grungewart - you're definitely within your defence filing deadline?

In that case, what the ham sandwich are BW Legal up to? Is this a new tactic they have?

Not the original poster but I have a deadline for filing my defence on the same date as them and I too have received that same letter from BWLegal. It talks about the CCJ aspect and that they can send County Court Bailiffs round (Warrant of Control), deduct payments from my salary (Attachment of Earnings), or order me to attend court to disclose financial circumstances. Also has a section titled "What You Need To Do Now" which explains how I should phone them and set up a payment plan instead of fighting them in court.

Essentially it seems like they're trying to intimidate/frighten people with potential scary consequences, and have one final go at getting the payment before court.