DCB Legal & Premier Parking Logistics (Hearing Day 😞)

Th1nDiesel

I'll take arguably; thank you 

I've attached a redacted copy of the NTK; if someone wouldn't mind giving it a quick look over it would be much appreciated as I'm hoping there's something else in there that makes it non-compliant.

Coupon-mad

Looks like a POFA compliant NTK apart from the citation of the wrong paragraph, so I think it's a minor point.  However, don't think that the NTK is the only thing a PPC has to get right, to have keeper liability.  There must be 'adequate notice' of the parking charge (i.e. clear signs) and a relevant obligation.

Th1nDiesel

Well that's disappointing, given the amount of non-compliant NTKs on here. Oh well - as you say, there are plenty of other arguments to use.

Complaint to the landowner will be posted later today, so we'll see how that goes. In the meantime, I'll keep reading through threads on here and I'll start drafting my defence in preparation of the claim that I'm sure will come - I'll be back when it drops on my doormat.

Th1nDiesel

So, inevitability has caught up with me and I have now received a claim form relating to this incident. The issue date is 04/01/21. 
I've heard nothing back from my landowner complaint (as expected), so draft defence is underway.

Le_Kirk

@KeithP will be along to give you some deadlines and useful advice.  Do not submit the AoS until you read that advice.

KeithP

Th1nDiesel said:

I have now received a claim form relating to this incident. The issue date is 04/01/21. 

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th January, you have until Monday 25th January to file an Acknowledgment of Service. If possible, do not file an AoS before 9th January, but otherwise, there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AoS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th February 2021 to file your Defence.

That's over four 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Th1nDiesel

So, here is the first draft of paragraphs 2 & 3 of my defence; the rest is exactly the same as the template. I've borrowed much of it from other fluttering ticket defences, but any comments, advice or recommendations would be greatly appreciated:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.      It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. 

3.    On the day in question, the Defendant purchased a ticket to park for the required time period shortly after parking the vehicle in a valid parking bay. The Defendant then used the provided sticky backing to affix the ticket to the inside of the windscreen so that all details were clearly visible from the outside. The Defendant secured the vehicle and ensured that the ticket was still attached and clearly visible before leaving the car park.

3.1    The ticket was to the full knowledge of the Defendant at the time, in place the right way up and visible when the car was locked and left parked. The Defendant has no knowledge of the point at which the ticket moved out of sight or why, but made all reasonable endeavours, and complied by conduct.

3.2    It is the Defendant’s belief that the heat from the sun had softened the sticky backing, causing the ticket to fall from the windscreen and either i) flutter to the floor of the vehicle or, ii) drop to the dashboard where it became obscured by previous parking tickets. However, the following alternative situations cannot be ruled out:

a) A gust of wind may have dislodged the ticket, despite the windows & doors being locked.

b) The employee of the Claimant may have caused the ticket to become dislodged, perhaps accidentally when leaning across the car or pushing between vehicles. No suggestion of foul play is intended.

c) A passer-by may have leaned on the car, when squeezing between the small bays to get to their own vehicle.

3.3.    None of the above scenarios are within a driver's control (the Defendant was by that time, absent from the location) and it is evident that someone else – or a factor outside anyone's control – was to blame. This appears to have been a case of casus fortuitus, which is a doctrine that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties renders the contract frustrated.

Th1nDiesel

Also, I've seen the following included in some defences, where the Particulars of Claim has been vague:

5.    The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5

5.1    The claim particulars fail to specify how the terms of parking were breached and fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 by not including a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to parking charges incurred with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence; are not clear and concise as is required by CPR Part 16.4 1(a).

5.2    The Claimant and their solicitor are known to be a serial litigants and issuer of speculative claims, using template particulars of claim which arise from an automated template, with no due diligence.

5.3    In C3GF84Y2 (Mason, Plymouth County Court) [2016] the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

5.4    On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failed to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the claim was struck out.

In my case, the PoC only states that terms and conditions were breached; there is no reason given, despite the NTK and LoC stating that the reason was 'No Ticket'. Does the above need to be included?

Coupon-mad

No, don't bother with all that #5 stuff but the earlier post looks good.

Th1nDiesel

Thank you for taking the time to check it, @Coupon-mad. There were a couple of other points that I considered making:
1) There was no PCN on the vehicle when I returned; had there been, I would have retained the original ticket and made an appeal within the allocated timeframe. I'm sure the claimant will rely on the photo with the PCN in place as evidence. 
2) I have used the same car park on multiple occasions, all without incident - I even have a ticket from a later date (which I may end up using in my evidence pack).
Should I include these in my defence, or save them for the Witness Statement?