PCM Grass verge parking - any help with witness statement is much appreciated

[Deleted User]

Hi all,
I'm at a stage where it's time to file my defense against PCM. I already acknowledged service, so now I'm looking for some advice on my draft defense.
Background:
I worked at a warehouse temporarily for a few months. Their staff parking is on a private land that opens from a public road. The Private road is fenced off from the warehouse and goes around it with double yellow lines all the way, except for a tiny area where our staff parking was - no marked bays, just some laminated signs on the fence with the company name. The attached misleading signs are all over the place. I left my car on the grass verge, because there was no space available.

• As far as I know, no permit was ever issued or used by any of the staff vehicles parked on that part of the road and often vehicles were left on double yellow and out of bays, even where I got ticketed (there are other private roads connected to this one with marked bays that have residents living and I have seen permits used there).
• Technically I had the authorisation to be there, which is why I never bothered reading the sign, because I understood it to be about trespass.. but

• Windshield PCN says: Parked within a restricted area, period of parking which immediately precedes the time of issue.
• Notice to keeper reiterates above. When appealed the letter states: "The restrictions require that a vehicle is parked in the designated parking area only. Parking is not permitted on access roads, grass verges, areas marked with cross hatched markings or areas in which parking is not designated. In this case your vehicle was not authorised to be parked there"

I have not received any Pre-claim letter, so the only other info I have about particulars of the claim is
"The driver of the vehicle with registration ... parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage ('Contract') at ..., on ... thus incurring the parking charge (the 'PCN') The PCN was not paid within 28 days of issue. T Claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the Defendant as the driver/keeper of the Vehicle. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. The Claimant claims £100 for the PCN, £60 contractual costs and interest)"

My defense is:

1. As the Defendant and keeper of the vehicle with registration ... I dispute the claim for a 'parking charge’ issued on ... by Claimant, whereby it is alleged that Defendant 'parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the ‘Contract’) at ... thus, in the view of the Claimant, incurring parking charge (PCN).
2. Until further clear and adequate explanation is given by Claimant, to the standard expected by the ‘practice directions’ of the court system, it is understood that the Claimant's claim relies wholly on the assumption that a ‘Contract’ was entered between Defendant and Claimant.
3. It is the Defendant’s position that no contract was entered into with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct, and as such the Defendant cannot be held liable for any contractual costs or interest or for damages arising from any alleged breach of the misleading terms.
4. Claimants claim includes a substantial charge additional to the 'parking charge' which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. The Claimant is claiming a global sum of £160 (£100 for the PCN, £60 contractual costs) in relation to the 'parking charge’. This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. Defendant considers this to be an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.
5. Claims pleaded on this basis have routinely been struck out ab initio in various County Court hearing centres. Two examples of such Judicial rulings are Claim number F0DP201T District Judge Taylor Southampton Court, 10th June 2019 and Deputy District Judge Josephs Claim Number: F5DP2D6Y, 6th Dec 2019.
6. The Court is, therefore, invited to strike out the claim on the basis of abuse of process, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the civil procedure rules 1998.
7. Defendant also does not accept that Signage was in sufficiently large print as to be legible to a driver at the car park’s entry point. It appears that the Signage is designed to ensure that a parking ticket is issued against the unsuspecting motorist (due to the inconsistent variations in font sizes, where highly relevant information remains completely hidden), making it misleading, unreasonably hard to read and correctly interpret to be used as a basis for forming any kind of contract. Even if the Court accepts that a contract could have been formed, the terms of which were not made clear as to allow motorists to make informed choices, therefore any such contract would not be enforceable.
8. It is further argued that the Signage at this location fails to create any contractual liability due to its “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.
9. It is accepted that there is generally no right to park in a private or unadopted road except for the owner of the road. However, in this case, Defendant had a right-of-way to enable access to relevant land as it is the registered address of ... where Defendant worked as an agency worker from ... therefore it is argued that this overrides any potential contract with Claimant. And as such, trespass could not have occurred as (a) Defendant had explicit authorization from landowner’s representative to park on said land for the duration of the assignment; and (b) Defendant had the same rights as permanent staff, who parked on same land, under The Agency Workers Regulations 2010 to use any shared facilities and services provided including car parking.
10. Further proving that Landowner has granted license to relevant land is the fact that no permit has been used by any of the motorists in relevant area and cars were frequently parked outside marked bays for entire work days in the months Defendant worked there as can clearly be seen on photos taken in the background as evidence by Claimant. To Defendant’s knowledge, no other motorist was issued a parking charge notice on the day of alleged breach of contract or any other day.
11. It is also argued that Claimant has not acted fairly in regards to the disputed charges - as other than using purposefully misleading and unnecessary threatening template letters, sent by different legal entities that only offered payment as a form of resolution - Claimant has failed to (a) provide sufficient information; (b) explain or justify any added costs; or (c) demonstrate that Claimant has the legal authority of relevant land flowing from the Landowner (traceability), authorizing the Claimant to operate, and offer any ‘Contract’ to motorists, issue Parking Charge Notices, and to bring such charges by means of civil proceedings. Consequently, Claimant failed to allow Defendant to (a) understand Claimant's position; (b) make decisions about how to proceed; (c) try to settle the issues without proceedings. One such letter from TRACE Debt Recovery Ltd states: “If you do not pay the full amount (£160) or you have not contacted us to agree a payment option by then, we will be forced to take further recovery action which could include an appointed solicitor being instructed to take your case to court. Should we take this action it will result in; Further Solicitor charges being added to your balance. Court costs being added to your balance. County Court Judgment (CCJ)” which is clearly a misleading effort to coerce Defendant into paying. Even if Claimant has a contract with the Landowner, Claimant may not meet the requirements set out in it - whether contract was out-of-date, wrong parties were named, etc.
12. For any or all of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss this claim in its entirety should the matter proceed to trial, and to award the Defendant’s witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14.
13. Defendant reserves the right to alter the above defense if Claimant brings new evidence (or clarifies their position).

I don't know if I'm shooting myself in the foot for saying I had authorisation to park there or not..
Any thoughts?
Thanks!

Redx

Some numbers have no content , I hope you based the defence ( no S in defence by the way ) on the recent defence template by coupon mad ?

If yes , highlight the changes you have made in bold because nobody is going to review the words coupon mad wrote , only your changes and additions etc

And run a UK spell checker over it to ensure the correct spelling of words like Defence

D_P_Dance

Far too much small print in that sign to form a contract imo.  I suspect that many  judges would agree with me, read this., and make it a major point in your defence

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

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.

[Deleted User]

Redx said:

If yes , highlight the changes you have made in bold because nobody is going to review the words coupon mad wrote , only your changes and additions etc

Thanks Redx, sorry about the numbering, I just fixed it.
My addition are points 9, 10, 11.
I'll make sure to UK spell check it, of course, thanks for pointing it out.

Le_Kirk

As the Defendant and keeper of the vehicle with registration ... I dispute the claim for a 'parking charge’ issued on ... by Claimant, whereby it is alleged that Defendant 'parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the ‘Contract’) at ... thus, in the view of the Claimant, incurring parking charge (PCN).

Defences must be written in the Third Person so maybe it will be better as: -

As the The Defendant and keeper of the vehicle with registration ... I disputes the claim for a 'parking charge’ issued on ... by the Claimant, whereby it is alleged that the Defendant "parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the ‘Contract’)" at ... thus, in the view of the Claimant, incurring parking charge (PCN).

D_P_Dance

IMO this is very unlikely to get to court.  Even if it does, will the PPC still be around?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-courts-and-tribunals-planning-and-preparation

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

On what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?

[Deleted User]

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

9 March 2020
On what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
22 March 2020

[Deleted User]

Thanks for all the replies, so what do you guys think, should I still argue that I had authorisation to be on that road (even though I was on the grass verge) or should I just omit that part and concentrate on the signs not creating a contract and being utterly misleading? thanks

KeithP

[Deleted User] said:

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

9 March 2020
On what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
22 March 2020

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 14th April 2020 to file your Defence.

That's over three weeks 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.

[Deleted User]

Hey everyone, as I'm preparing my witness statement for the trial I ran into a couple of issues. Any help would be much appreciated.
1. Looking at the evidence (aerial photos of the alleged contravention) it's clear that the name of the road my vehicle was photographed on is completely different than on PCN. This is good news I guess, but in my defence I argued that I had authority to park there. So my question is do I just admit I was wrong because claimant didn't provide enough info as I requested? Or do I need to apply to court so I can change my defence?
2. The claimants witness is A Oliver, and I can see that the signature is only an image, but I can't find any cases relating to A Oliver (I could only find some when it was before she changed her name)
3. When sending my defence I panicked and sent it in an email and also on the website (short version saying full statement to follow in email). Now claimant wants the court to strike out my defence on this basis.
Please help, don't know how to respond to this.
The trial is listed for 2 hours remotely, so last question:
4. When sending witness statement, which court do I send it to? The hearing is scheduled at a different court from what it says in the header of the notice.
Thanks again!