PCN - Letter Before Action - help

anged

Thanks
And I don't click onto the button marked 'Next' at any point in the future?

Coupon-mad

No.  Sounds like you need to re-read the 12 steps in the first post of the Template Defence thread.  This is all covered already.

KeithP

anged said:

Well It seems that CEL have decided to pursue this case again and have sent my friend the Claim form from CCBC.
Claim was issued 25.03.22
AOS submitted 31.3.22

With a Claim Issue Date of 25th March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 27th April 2022 to file your Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

anged

Hi all
The following facts are for No.3 of the Defence.  Can you please let me know if the wording is ok, should I remove anything, add anything else, is it worth mentioning that the mother-in-law is the holder of a disable blue badge?
Thanks

3. The defendant went to pick up elderly disabled mother-in-law from the Pizza Express at 34-38 Woodford Road Bramhall, Stockport, SK7 1PA.  This row of premises comprises of a couple of shops, bank, cafe & Pizza Express and the defendant was not aware that row of parking areas in front of the premises was a car park.   The premises are situated just off a very busy main road with a pedestrian crossing just before the approach to turn into the small road outside the premises.  The direction that the defendant was driving from required a right signal and it was a busy time of day.

The defendant remembers running late that day and was very aware that the elderly disabled mother-in-law would be getting anxious.  The bank and the café were obviously busy and there were other vehicles parked along the front of the premises.  Thankfully as the defendant drove into the small road in front of these premises, there was a space available at the end which is outside the window of Pizza Express restaurant. 

The defendant could see the mother-in-law sat at her table straight away and she beckoned the defendant into the restaurant to help her to get up.  The defendant proceeded to assist the disabled lady out of the restaurant, into the car, fasten her in and left the parking area to go home.  According to the times on the ANPR camera, the times to enter and then exit the parking area took 11 minutes and 10 seconds.

No signs were displayed at either the entrance or the exit of the car parking area.  The defendant has since seen that the parking restriction signs, which are hung quite low down on the outside walls of some of the retail premises, would have been obscured by other vehicles parked in the available places.

Coupon-mad

I think I would remove all this and keep it for WS stage:

This row of premises comprises of a couple of shops, bank, cafe & Pizza Express and the defendant was not aware that row of parking areas in front of the premises was a car park.   The premises are situated just off a very busy main road with a pedestrian crossing just before the approach to turn into the small road outside the premises.  The direction that the defendant was driving from required a right signal and it was a busy time of day.
The defendant remembers running late that day and was very aware that the elderly disabled mother-in-law would be getting anxious.  The bank and the café were obviously busy and there were other vehicles parked along the front of the premises.  Thankfully as the defendant drove into the small road in front of these premises, there was a space available at the end which is outside the window of Pizza Express restaurant.  
The defendant could see the mother-in-law sat at her table straight away and she beckoned the defendant into the restaurant to help her to get up.  The defendant proceeded to assist the disabled lady out of the restaurant, into the car, fasten her in and left the parking area to go home. 

Keep this bit, but add the additions I've suggested (my bold) and add paragraph numbers throughout:

According to the unproven and unsynchronised times suggested by the data from the ANPR camera(s), the times to enter and then exit the parking area took 11 minutes and 10 seconds.  The Defendant finds this very hard to believe and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the calibration of the clocks on the cameras and their position in relation to the parking area, which must have been set right back at the end of the approach road.  Eleven minutes is conveniently just over the minimum ten minute grace period required under the British Parking Association Code of Practice (BPA CoP) at the material time.  

The Defendant denies being parked for more than ten minutes.  Even if it is shown that the car was driving in the area for 11 minutes all told, this was for the purpose of picking up a Blue Badge holder and a reasonable adjustment of extra grace period is legally required, under the Equality Act 2010.  ANPR enforcement takes no account of disabled persons and in this case has resulted in indirect discrimination (an offence that is not justified by a trader saying they 'did not know' about the needs of an individual).

No signs were displayed at either the entrance or the exit of the car parking area.  The defendant has since seen that the parking restriction signs, which are hung quite low down on the outside walls of some of the retail premises, would have been obscured by other vehicles parked in the available places.  

There were no prominent and/or lit signs; no terms capable of being read and nothing to alert a driver to the ANPR enforcement and how the data being collected would be used.  This is in breach of the BPA CoP, which annexed as mandatory, the principles of the Information Commissioner's Surveillance Camera Code of Practice. Due to their unlawful, covert and predatory surveillance, the Claimant had no 'reasonable cause' whatsoever to apply to the DVLA for the registered keeper's data.

anged

Hi, am now at the stage of filling out the DQ.

As mentioned before, this is not my case but I am doing all the legwork.  I know that the defendant will not be able to cope with defending himself if it actually goes to the court hearing, so do I put down more than one witness so that I can do the talking. 

I am using the Gov.uk downloadable version of the N180 which is a bit more up to date than previously mentioned in a defence procedure thread and there is an extra couple of sections.  One is as follows;

E5  “Do you believe you, or a witness who will give evidence on your behalf, are vulnerable in any way which the court needs to consider? If Yes, please explain in what way you or the witness are vulnerable and what steps, support or adjustments you wish the court and the judge to consider”

So in light of that question, do I also put down that there is a 3rd witness, being the mother-in-law who was picked up from the restaurant.  If so, they would need to know about impaired hearing and the need for wheelchair access.

Thanks

 

Le_Kirk

Yes, if any witness who has/will produce a witness statement and will be present at the hearing, needs adjustments you should inform them of any adjustments they will need to make like acoustic hearing aids (or whatever it is called).  If the defendant is not able to defend themselves you can be there as a lay rep.  You do not need to inform them in advance but it is wise to take a copy of the lay reps act with you as some judges don't get it.

Coupon-mad

A lay rep (speaking for the D) is not a witness.

anged

Ok, so I will put down 2 witnesses, and on the day, I introduce myself as the Lay Rep.

Another question on the newer form is;
D
- D1 - Do you consider that this claim is suitable for determination without a hearing, i.e. by a judge reading and considering the case papers, witness statements and other documents filed by the parties, making a decision, and giving a note of reasons for that decision? If No, please state why not.
NOTES
The court can determine this claim without a hearing: (a) if both parties agree; or (b) where the ‘Small Claims Paper Determination Pilot’ applies, even if the parties do not agree. For more information on the courts participating in the pilot and the cases to which the pilot may and may not apply, please see Practice Direction 51ZC to CPR 51. Relevant reasons include that there are factual disputes which will need the judge to hear from witnesses directly (in which case please specify the factual dispute and the relevant witnesses) or that the issues are so complex they need to be argued orally.

I presume that I tick Yes ?

KeithP

anged said:

I presume that I tick Yes ?

That's the wrong answer.