Civil Enforcement Defence (Partner with type 1 diabetes)

Hoggyy210

Hi, i am currently working on my defence against civil enforcement.
The original PCN happened 11 months ago for £100 which was then raised to £170 and are now demanding £256 in total, which includes £11.81 interest, £25 court fee and £50 legal rep costs.
I parked in a pub/restaurant car park (which never used to be private) for 22 minutes.
I was picking my girlfriend up so it was supposed to be a quick in and out but i had to get out and assist her as she was having a hypoglycemic episode as she is a type 1 diabetic, this meant that we had to wait until her blood sugars went up. She physically cannot function when she is hypoglycemic.
Is the fact that my situation was a medical emergency work in my favor for my defence? can i use that in my defence?
Also, in the Particulars of Claim it says Debt + Damages claimed the sum of £170 and then £11.81 interest pursuant to S.69 of the county courts act 1984. 
So, because they added £70 to the original fine, but has not stated this in the particulars of claim (just says £170) does this help them avoid abuse of process?

I will be posting my first draft of my defence soon. 
any help and advice is welcomed and appreciated .
thank you. 

Ralph-y

Hi and welcome to the forum ...

have you looked through the defence thread/discussion yet?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

re the mitigating circumstances I would say yes to include such.... others will help in any such wording ....

Ralph

D_P_Dance

Read MC1, this would surely be cancelled by a council . 

https://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/car_parks_and_parking/penalty_charges/how_to_appeal_against_a_pcn/mitigating_circumstances.aspx

If they are daft enough to take this to court be sure to counter claim for disability discrimination.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/protected-characteristics/

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

KeithP

I've read this story before - 8 March at 3:29PM and replied on that thread.

Why do we now have a second thread about this?

Hoggyy210

Ralph-y said:

Hi and welcome to the forum ...

have you looked through the defence thread/discussion yet?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

re the mitigating circumstances I would say yes to include such.... others will help in any such wording ....

Ralph

Hi, thank you for your quick response. 
yes i am using that thread as a guide for my defence:)
I haven't been able to find any previous defences regarding a medical reason, so i was unsure if it would be valid in mine.

Hoggyy210

D_P_Dance said:

Read MC1, this would surely be cancelled by a council . 


If they are daft enough to take this to court be sure to counter claim for disability discrimination.

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.


Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Hi, thank you for your response.
i have read MC1. i can very easily prove that my partner is diabetic, but i dont know how we would be able to provide proof of her having a hypo, these happen quite frequently(at least 4 days a week).

Hoggyy210

KeithP said:

I've read this story before - 8 March at 3:29PM and replied on that thread.

Why do we now have a second thread about this?

sorry about that, i'm still working out how to use a forum

D_P_Dance

 i dont know how we would be able to provide proof of her having a hypo, 

IIMU it is the job of the claimant to prove that she did not.  In any case they would be insane imo to let this proceed to court.

Hoggyy210

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

re the mitigating circumstances I would say yes to include such.... others will help in any such wording ....

Ralph

So using that defence template I would write about the mitigating circumstances in #16 and #17? 
Quoting info from mc1 and the other link posted by D_P_Dance? 

D_P_Dance said:

Read MC1, this would surely be cancelled by a council . 

D_P_Dance

Yes, if they persist to court it is likely to scupper them.

nosferatu1001

Its proven, as ever, by witness statements
I imagine its captured on the pubs cctv, that the landlord or whichever staff member was there could say as well
Also it shouldbe on an incident log. Bet it isnt....