Court Defence Letter; "Fine" for not parking within the bay

bjmorrison

Hi all, 
I've just finished writing my defence for a court appearance and would be very grateful if someone could look at it for me. Essentially I received a "fine" from a certain private parking company who claimed the car was parked outside of the parking bay and therefore was in breach of their terms and conditions. A ticket had been purchased for the duration of the stay. On receiving the photo evidence you can clearly see that the tyres of the car are on the line and not across the line or encroaching into another bay. I no longer have this photo/letter and The PCN number noted on my CCJ letter is invalid. 

I've focused my defence on the fact there could have been no lost of earnings as a car could have easily parked next to mine, as well as the arbitory nature of the fine sum of £160.

I was told not to post the defence on here as the forum is monitored by some of the parking companies. So happy to share it in another way.

Thanks in Advance

B

Coupon-mad

No, you simply need to show us your #2 and #3 because you are using the forum's template defence (unless it's ParkingEye).

Tell us as well:

- the PPC's name and the solicitor they are using
- the issue date of the N1 claim form
- the date you did the AOS online (as the NEWBIES thread walks you through in pictures).

Le_Kirk

Good, we can mind read what you put in your defence!  The claimant will very soon have a copy of your defence as, when you return it to the  CCBC, the first thing they do is send it to the claimant.  Do you have a claim form (N1) or have you actually received a CCJ from a court?  Loss of earnings argument is no longer a valid argument since Beavis.

bjmorrison

Thanks for getting back to me..
- the PPC's name and the solicitor they are using: Walton Wilkins T/A Premier Parking Logistics. DCB Legal LTD
- the issue date of the N1 claim form: 23 Nov
- the date you did the AOS online: 27 Nov

4.           It is denied that the Defendant breached any terms & conditions.

4.1The defendants vehicle was parked at ______ and a ticket had been purchased for the duration of the stay. The alleged breach is claimed to have occurred due to the vehicle not being parked within the marked lines of the bay. On receiving a photograph of this alleged breach, it is clear that the vehicle is within the lines of the parking bay. There is no obstruction to the parking bay next to the defendant’s vehicle.

The defendant confirms a ticket was purchased on the date of the parking charge notification.

4.2. The PCN Details provided by the claimant 23/09/2019,936737 do not yield any results when entered into the PCN tracker.

Coupon-mad

Same as all the other Walton Wilkins threads, then!  We assume you've found & read them first.  He is a long-time pariah of an ex-clamper.

Fruitcake

You mentioned a CCJ letter. Unless you have received a CCJ, please call it by its correct name to save confusion.

To obtain copies of the original NTK and photos etcetera, send an SAR as per the NEWBIES requesting all your personal data that they hold about you. Include proof of ID such as a copy of the V5C or two redacted utility bills/card/bank statements. Do not include any photo ID.

bjmorrison

Sorry yes its an N1 form not a CCJ, got confused @Fruitcake thank you I will do that too. 
@Coupon-mad yeah I have been through quite a few of his threads, couldn't see one defending this "charge" though

KeithP

bjmorrison said:

- the issue date of the N1 claim form: 23 Nov
- the date you did the AOS online: 27 Nov 

With a Claim Issue Date of 23rd November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 27th November, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 29th December 2020 to file your Defence.

That's 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.

D_P_Dance

If they were daft enough to take this to court they might struggle to convince a judge that  this dastardly behaviour merited reccompense to thee tune of £100.  Have you complained to your MP?

bjmorrison

Thanks @KeithP so I have amended my defence to match the one you shared and made the adjustments to section 2 and 3 (see below) do I need to change any other of the points laid out in that template? (Aside from my personal details etc)

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is denied that the defendant was the driver at the time in question.

2.1       The defendants vehicle was parked at Shaw’s Passage and a ticket had been purchased for the duration of the stay. The alleged breach is claimed to have occurred due to the vehicle not being parked within the marked lines of the bay. On receiving a photograph of this alleged breach, it is clear that the vehicle is within the lines of the parking bay. There is no obstruction to the parking bay next to the defendant’s vehicle. The defendant confirms a ticket was purchased on the date of the parking charge notification.

2.2        . The PCN Details provided by the claimant 23/09/2019,936737 do not yield any results when entered into the PCN tracker. 

3. The first time the defendant was made aware of this parking charge was some months later when a letter was received. Due to the fact that the claim made by the claimant was untrue. No efforts to respond to the letter were made. A number of follow up and threatening letters continued to follow and the defendant felt harassed by this bombardment. 

Le_Kirk

bjmorrison said:

3. The first time the defendant was made aware of this parking charge was some months later when a letter was received. Due to the fact that the claim made by the claimant was untrue. No efforts to respond to the letter were made. A number of follow up and threatening letters continued to follow and the defendant felt harassed by this bombardment. 

This does not make sense!  Did you mean: -

3. The first time the defendant was made aware of this parking charge was some months later when a letter was received. Due to the fact that the claim made by the claimant was untrue, no efforts to respond to the letter were made. A number of follow up and threatening letters continued to follow were received and the defendant felt harassed by this bombardment. 

Also might be better to show that YOU received the letters as it could be read that you SENT the follow up and threatening letters.