UK Car Park PCN - Help Needed

1505grandad

para 4.1.2  -  "Specifically, the Claimant is in breach of Part E Schedule 1, nor (ii) the minimum requirements contained in part 18 of the BPA code of practice. Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice,..........."

You cannot quote the BPA CoP for an IPC AOS member.

D_P_Dance

These companies should be banned from private car parks, not only do they waste immense amounts of residents' time but they depress rental values and lower resale prices.  

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad, are you now advocating a "long" defence with the Abuse of Process arguments plus all your arguments from the Southampton case at Defence stage rather than a concise defence and the AoP at WS stage?

Coupon-mad

Yes, I have come back to that feeling again, since we saw that Skipton Court is also striking cases out. 
I think a longer ending like the above version, might make other Judges take a look at what other courts are doing and maybe we will see more strike outs in 2020.  Most Defendants will prefer a strike out if they can get it, I'm sure, than appearing in court.

I plan to provide just one or two template defences in the NEWBIES thread instead of 17.  Maybe one for ParkingEye (and rare cases where the PPC adds no false costs) and one for all the rest of the motley crew.

And maybe we can later add a counter claim for those who want their day in court and have a cause of action.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, I have come back to that feeling again, since we saw that Skipton Court is also striking cases out. 
I think a longer ending like the above version, might make other Judges take a look at what other courts are doing and maybe we will see more strike outs in 2020.  Most Defendants will prefer a strike out if they can get it, I'm sure, than appearing in court.

OK, will go along with this strategy.

I plan to provide just one or two template defences in the NEWBIES thread instead of 17.  Maybe one for ParkingEye (and rare cases where the PPC adds no false costs) and one for all the rest of the motley crew.

That will be good, as some of the link seem to be failing since the move to the new platform or it might be coincidence) but certainly the first link for RIngGO app is broken and the second link goes to a 2017 defence.

ParkerCarrie

Coupon-mad said:

Replace #5 onwards, with this (covers two posts here!) that I've adapted from a template defence that I am currently working on as a suggested 'one size fits all except Parking Eye' defence:

11.   The Defendant further avers that the following would also be unacceptable or at least objectionable as being of no  evidential value and capable of abuse, manipulation or misdirecting the Court:  undated site maps; aerial view (typically mocked up using GoogleStreetView with flags or crosses liberally dotted around); 'stock' images or artwork; photographs where the timings can easily be changed; undated or old/archive photographs of signs; or those where the sign (even if alleged to be within the site) is not identifiable as being close to the route taken, having regard to the signage placement, lighting and other details.  It is not accepted that the Claimant has complied with its Trade Body Code of Practice ('CoP') as regards mandatory signs or any other CoP rule that may later be called into question and revealed by the lack of evidence and the Defendant has seen nothing to suggest that the car was parked in contravention of any terms.  The Defendant is having to guess, but this Claimant is known to take predatory photos over a period of just a few minutes, paying no regard to the mandatory Grace period (a minimum of ten minutes).  

Thank you very much Coupon-mad!
A question concerning paragraph 11 above: In my case I am not saying that I was allowed to stop there for a limited time (i.e. to load/unload or for 2 hrs such as in the Beavis case) but rather that I had a right to park there for an unlimited time. So should I delete the end of this paragraph re grace period? Or is it a general remark?
Also if I was to defend this statement of defense in court, would I have to go through all of the statement?

ParkerCarrie

1505grandad said:

para 4.1.2  -  "Specifically, the Claimant is in breach of Part E Schedule 1, nor (ii) the minimum requirements contained in part 18 of the BPA code of practice. Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice,..........."

You cannot quote the BPA CoP for an IPC AOS member.

Thank you very much. I see that the IPC CoP (Schedule 1 - Signage, Entrance Signs) also states that "The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text 
without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead." So I will refer to that instead.

ParkerCarrie

Hi all, so I have prepared a second draft (attached) where I have incorporated Coupon-mad's template defence at the the end of my statement. I have had to reformat to match the beginning of my defence, so I hope my reformatting of Coupon-mad's paragraphs still makes sense?
Please let me know if you think this is ok?
Many thanks

ParkerCarrie

Good afternoon guys,
Just a bump! I know this is last minute but if by any chance anyone has had a chance to look at my draft and can give me the green light to send it to the court
Thank you!

Le_Kirk

If you have done exactly what C-m said then you should be good to go.