Excel Parking Claim Form - Defence for Review

Fiortdunlop2020

Hi, been receiving support on pepipoo (many thanks) and understand should post defence for Excel PCN claim here for review:

• Car parked at end of bay on line (no adjoining bay). 

• Adopted coupon-mad template for Abuse of process and included Paragraph on NtK non compliant due to No period of parking 9 (2) (a) and Warning of keeper liability not given in the prescribed format 9 (2) (f). They have used term issue date rather than given

• Issue date 27/2/20 and AoS submitted need to send defence before 29/03/20.

Thanks

KeithP

You mention the term Issue Date twice in your post.

To avoid mistakes, can you please tell us the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form and tell us the date upon which you filed an Acknowledgment of Service.

Fiortdunlop2020

Hi Keith really sorry for delay been manic I have 4 young kids and with school closures been mental plus my mom has inoperable lung cancer dealing with this last thing I needed at this time  
Issue Date on County Court Claim 27/2/20 and AoS on 6/3/20.
Appreciate your help.

KeithP

Fiortdunlop2020 said:

Issue Date on County Court Claim 27/2/20 and AoS on 6/3/20.

With a Claim Issue Date of 27th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 31st March 2020 to file your Defence.

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

To file a Defence, follow the guidance in this post:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76880595#Comment_76880595

Guidance on creating a Defence is also in that thread - in the first post on that thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Fruitcake

Just a couple of comments from me.
I wouldn't say how the car was parked, (first red paragraph) just state that it wasn't improperly parked.

 The defendant’s car was parked primarily within the parking bay with both drivers side wheels parked on the lines of the parking bay, but not across parking bays and in the defendants opinion  correctly and did not constitute a negative impact on other carpark users.

Minor typo here in the second red paragraph, "no" should read "not".

 9 (2) (f) Warning of keeper liability no given in the prescribed format

Coupon-mad

Everything red needs changing to black of course and every paragraph needs a number, not a bullet point dot.

Not sure how 'in the Beavis case' here changed to 'the z case?'

Even if the Claimant had shown the global sum claimed in the largest font on clear and prominent signs - which is denied - they are attempting double recovery of costs. The sum exceeds the maximum amount which can be recovered from a registered keeper, as prescribed in Schedule 4, Section 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the POFA’).  It is worth noting that in the z case where the driver was known, the Supreme Court considered and referred more than once to the POFA.

You don't need to put the POFA in full again and there is a typo here, and you don't add any evidence yet so no Appendix D (i.e. NO ATTACHMENTS AT THIS STAGE, EXCEPT THE COURT DECISIONS) so I suggest this and please change car park to two words each time (eeeek!):

In regard to the Parking Enforcement memo issued by the Property Manager to Fort Dunlop Office Tenants: (Appendix D).  The memo stated: Carpark Deck: “Parking etiquette will be monitored within this zone, anybody parking  in a way that will have a negative impact on other car park users will be issued a ticket.''  In fact, the defendant’s car was parked primarily within the parking bay with both drivers side wheels parked on the lines of the parking bay, but not across parking bays and in the defendants opinion did not constitute a negative impact on other car park users.  Further, the Court is invited to note that the above commuication was merely a residents' update memo, not something that could fall under the POFA definitions of a 'relevant contract' or 'relevant obligation' and it fails to set out any boundaries or definitions and does not even mention any specific penalty charge (the word 'ticket' does not communicate any sum of money at all).

• The claimant has failed to meet the keeper liability requirements as stated in the POFA. 2012 Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Specifically they failed to comply with Schedule 4 Paragraph  9 (2) (a) period of parking to which the notice relates and further, re 9 (2) (f) the mandatory warning of keeper liability was not given in the prescribed format and the purported NTK in fact misstates the position and misleads a keeper regarding the period of time as set out in the Act.

Fiortdunlop2020

Hi Folks,
Thanks for feedback and guidance will address these later today and repost updated for tomorrow. Got 3 kids squabbling here this homeschooling going to go down like a lead ballon.
Hope you all keeping safe. 
Many Thanks

Fiortdunlop2020

Hi Folks, 

Hope you all keeping safe, yet again sorry for delay been crazy with lock down. Updated as per comments please see attached revised Defence (will remove red in final draft). Also attached memo from property manager just so you can see it.
Thanks

Le_Kirk

Did the Property Manager (presumably on behalf of the ManCO or the landlords) carry out a survey and questionnaire and get permission from over 75% of the residents, with no more than 10% disagreeing, before they "imposed" the enforcement notice?

D_P_Dance

Read this

https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/forum/residential-letting-questions/1053920-private-parking-companies

Fiortdunlop2020

Hi All
Its an office building with shared business tenants and not residential, does this only apply to residential or also business?

With regard to the survey or questionnaire or survey I am not sure but could possibly find out by calling the business office manager for office I was working

Thanks