Lancaster University parking tickets from First parking LLP - Please help!

Redx

1) , yes , definitely , giving 7 days to comply

2) each defence is based on the PCN,s listed in the particulars of claim , so one if only one is being claimed for , two if two , etc

Coupon-mad

Only defend the PCN listed on the claim. 

 If they later try a second claim for another PCN, that would become a spate of claims and an abuse of the court process, but at this stage, your single PCN defence is going to be similar to any other, based on the template defence. Pretty easy to write your facts in para 2 and 3 as shown in any other court claim thread you want to read over the weekend for inspiration and to gain confidence in what to say.

anonaMouse2021

Thanks guys, just for an update, the company finally sent me my data. They have sent data for the one PCN they are claiming, I asked them for all data and they have told me they only have one PCN against me. 

So I suppose I will just defend the one PCN they have managed to not lose the data of. So incompetent but works in my favour

Umkomaas

Hang on to that response for at least the next 6 years. 

anonaMouse2021

Thank you all so far for your help.
There is now a defence being written. The driver remembers that on the day of this PCN claim, they were 'parked' close to their educational centre to move some heavy textbooks/parcels for approx 45 mins. Multiple trips were made. The University parking policy states that cars can be parked if not left unattended for more than ten minutes. The driver also argues that there is a distinction between parking and stopping to load/unload items.

The evidence supplied by the claimant shows pictures of the car that are 36 minutes apart where it is stopped in the same spot.



Here is a draft defence (adapted from template) if someone would kindly take a look/make any suggestions/changes.

____________________

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

2. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court's permission to amend and supplement this defence, as may be required, upon disclosure of the claimant's case.

 

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 also admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question when the PCN was issued. The driver was a Lancaster University student at the time of parking.

 

5. The vehicle was parked for approximately 45 minutes, whilst the driver made multiple trips to physically transport heavy textbooks/parcels between the car and the clinical anatomy learning centre (CALC), the University library and also the learning zone.

 

6. The car was parked in this location due to it being one of the closest places available to park to CALC.

6. Lancaster University Car Parking Policy (2020/21) #21 states that “If unable to use one of the designated delivery / loading / drop-off bays, all vehicles that are delivering, loading or unloading must not cause any form of obstruction. Vehicles must not be left unattended for more than 10 minutes at a time. This includes moving students’ belongings in or out of campus accommodation.”

 

7. Lancaster University Car Parking Policy #21 therefore allows vehicles to be parked for loading/unloading, as long as they are not unattended for 10 minutes.

 

8.1. In the case of Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, heard on Appeal in Oxford Court by Circuit Judge HHJ Charles Harris QC and therefore a persuasive finding as well as being on all fours with my case, it was held that: “it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time”.

8.2 HHJ Harris provided a very detailed definition of 'parking' as opposed to a few minutes 'loading' and held: ''The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes. Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) loaded with bulky items, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. [...]I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the keeper's car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while he carried out his books, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice.''

The defence then carries on as per template... '4.  The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement'...

The numbers will be changed once the defence is finalised. 

Again many thanks for the help.

Coupon-mad

2. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court's permission to amend and supplement this defence, as may be required, upon disclosure of the claimant's case.

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 also admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question when the PCN was issued. The driver was  and the Defendant had authority to be at the location, being a Lancaster University student at the time. of parking.

5. 

3. The vehicle was stopped temporarily parked for approximately 45 minutes, whilst the driver made multiple trips to physically transport heavy textbooks/parcels between the car and the clinical anatomy learning centre (CALC), the University library and also the learning zone.   The car was not parked nor left unattended for a period of time; it was stopped for the purposes of unloading and this location was one of the closest places with allowed vehicular access and rights of way for students to access the available to park to CALC.

 

Stop saying 'parked'!!  Your numbering needs sorting out.

Redx

That looks a lot better with those edits

Leave the earlier draft jam filling and icing on top of the cake until the WS plus exhibits stage , not needed in the concise defence , which coupon mad demonstrated in her reply

anonaMouse2021

Thankyou both for the suggestions and help. I think this is looking better now:

____________________

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

 

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 also admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle and the Defendant had authority to be at the location, being a Lancaster University student at the time.

3. The vehicle was stopped temporarily, whilst the driver made multiple trips to physically transport heavy textbooks/parcels between the car and the clinical anatomy learning centre (CALC), the University library and also the learning zone. The car was not parked nor left unattended for a period of time; it was stopped for the purposes of unloading and this location was one of the closest places with allowed vehicular access and rights of way for students to access the CALC.

4. Lancaster University Car Parking Policy (2020/21) #21 states that “If unable to use one of the designated delivery / loading / drop-off bays, all vehicles that are delivering, loading or unloading must not cause any form of obstruction. Vehicles must not be left unattended for more than 10 minutes at a time. This includes moving students’ belongings in or out of campus accommodation.”

5. Lancaster University Car Parking Policy #21 therefore allows vehicles to be parked for loading/unloading, as long as they are not unattended for 10 minutes.

 

6.1. In the case of Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, heard on Appeal in Oxford Court by Circuit Judge HHJ Charles Harris QC and therefore a persuasive finding as well as being on all fours with my case, it was held that: “it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time”.

6.2 HHJ Harris provided a very detailed definition of 'parking' as opposed to a few minutes 'loading' and held: ''The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes. Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) loaded with bulky items, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. [...]I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the keeper's car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while he carried out his books, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice.''

 

 

7.  The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case and the quantum has been enhanced....

                                                   ____________________



Also, the University policy states that 'A Parking Charge Notice of £75 may be issued for failing to comply with any of the above restrictions. ' (in relation to loading)
Do you think that is worth including to further evidence this inflated claim?


On a similar note, the letter of claim asked for £160. The solicitors then went back on this and then asked for £135. Is this also worth including as evidence of inflating/changing these claims? Or is it irrelevant in the context of all the other things that are being said in this defence.

Many thanks!

Redx

the defence should be concise as I replied earlier, I also said leave all the jackanory story etc , plus exhibits as well, for the WS + Exhibits stage

no evidence is submitted with a defence !! so no point asking , save it for later, in several months time

Coupon-mad

5. Lancaster University Car Parking Policy #21 therefore allows vehicles to be parked for loading/unloading, as long as they are not unattended for 10 minutes.  The Defendant takes the point that, due to the unloading activity taking place, the vehicle was never unattended for more than ten minutes during this process and the Claimant is put to strict proof of their allegations.