Claim for a PCN from 2016 lol

Allygood100

probably a silly one but is there no time limit for old PCNs that renders them void?

Seemslegitium

Allygood100 said:

probably a silly one but is there no time limit for old PCNs that renders them void?

Claims for breach of contract must generally be made within 6 years. If the matter relates to the failure to repay a debt and the debt is secured with a mortgage, the period may be longer – up to 12 years.

blackdog2220

or 5 yrs in scotland 

Redx

Allygood100 said:

probably a silly one but is there no time limit for old PCNs that renders them void?

The PCN,s are never void , the alleged debt remains forever

But enforcement through the Court systems is 6 years in England and Wales and 5 years in Scotland

See the Limitations Act 1980

Coupon-mad

If it is MOTO or Roadchef (service stations) they have been cancelling court claims.  If it is a retail park then...maybe. (you should have complained way earlier but I hope they do cancel it).

Allygood100

did get few cancelled (more then 5 lol) this one slipped the net.

Allygood100

managed to finally speak to the mg of the place who agreed to email the parking people to get the ticket cancelled but haven't received a confirmation yet. so i'm going to post my defence and cross my fingers.

Allygood100

IN THE COUNTY COURT  

________________________________________  

DEFENCE  

________________________________________  

  The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. 

         The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time' or of the driver not being a patron of Moto Pease pottage services A23.  

1. The Defendant contacted the management of the services and they stated that they wish this charge to be cancelled and do not support it, as the Defendant is a private hire driver and as such, a regular authorised visitor who should be on the site's ''white list''. Thus, there is no legitimate interest or commercial justification possible for this charge, and (as was discussed in the Beavis case) here the penalty rule remains engaged.  
2. The Defendant denies that the Claimant has the capacity in accordance with the British Parking Association Code of Practice Para 7.3 to take legal action. The Defendant further asserts that the Principal has instructed the Claimant to cancel the Parking Notice.  
3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.   
4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.  
5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.   
6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 
7.  The defendant never noticed the signs prior to the fine and if he knew about the parking terms he would’ve asked the hotel in question to exempt his vehicle on their permanent ‘white list’ to enable him to use the site regularly without being punished for not knowing about an onerous hidden trap. Not only was that option never stated anywhere, but in fact nothing was seen about any keypad to input any VRN, a wholly unexpected requirement.  
8. This case is different to Beavis, furthermore the hotel wants the whole claim cancelled and the defendant will provide prove in due time. So there are no facts that save this from being struck out as punitive and unconscionable, and the penalty rule mentioned in Beavis remains engaged on this occasion, with no support from the landowner and no deterrent value or commercial justification, and a complete lack of clear signs inside and out to draw attention to some sort of keypad/ipad, there is no legitimate interest  that could allow this claimant to charge more than could the normal damages that only a landowner could claim if applicable.  
9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.  
10. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.  

  

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.    

nosferatu1001

I would file the template defence, making the para 2 and 3 changes as before
You know every para MUST have a number. You have two without

Umkomaas

Check with the PPC's website to find out the current status of the PCN. That will prevent you having to guess whether the cancellation has been effected. Some PPCs write to confirm cancellation, many don't bother - why would they waste a stamp to tell you they're going to get nothing from you!  😄