Money Claim - Going Court for Private Parking PCN

Coupon-mad

I removed the phrase 'abuse of process' because it was being used stupidly by people who thought it was their defence golden ticket.  It was driving me nuts that people were bandying the phrase around like it meant something new...it's as old as the hills!  So I changed the template to talk about the fact that the added £60 is double recovery. 

That seems to have stopped the hysterics from people who thought they just had to rock up and shout 'abuse of process' and that the Judge would know what they meant.  Having said that, we only found out about Excel v Wilkinson in January, a few weeks ago, and I am working full time and haven't had a chance to update the template defence with reference to it yet.  And that's also partly deliberate because Excel have an appeal happening this Spring according to Jake Burgess of VCS (not an appeal to Wilkinson, but an appeal to a case that was struck out that relied upon the usual CRA 2015 reasoning).

So, bottom line, no rush to shoe-horn the Excel case into a defence at the moment.  By the time you get to WS stage maybe we will know more about the appeal and there could be some clarity.

bergkamp10

Coupon-mad said:

I removed the phrase 'abuse of process' because it was being used stupidly by people who thought it was their defence golden ticket.  It was driving me buts that people were bandying the phrase around like it meant something new...it's as old as the hills!  So I changed the template to talk about the fact that the added £60 is double recovery. 

That seems to have stopped the hysterics from people who thought they just had to rock up and shout 'abuse of process' and that the Judge would know what they meant.  Having said that, we only found out about Excel v Wilkinson in January, a few weeks ago, and I am working full time and haven't had a chance to update the template defence with reference to it yet.  And that's also partly deliberate because Excel have an appeal happening this Spring according to Jake Burgess of VCS (not an appeal to Wilkinson, but an appeal to a case that was struck out that relied upon the usual CRA 2015 reasoning).

So, bottom line, no rush to shoe-horn the Excel case into a defence at the moment.  By the time you get to WS stage maybe we will know more about the appeal and there could be some clarity.

Thanks Coupon-mad. I understand. So it ended up harming people’s cases rather than helping?

Does para 7 of the draft template cover the point without the mention of “abuse of process” or is that para defending the case on different lines?

bergkamp10

Oh, and can someone please review the draft defence I shared last night? Keith asked that I split up the points because para 2 became too long. I have added it again below. Thanks.

Please, deadline is 4pm today and I will need to email it to my friend so he can print it, sign, and send the document off. Thanks again.

2.      It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the hire vehicle in question but liability is denied.

3.      On the date in question the Defendant admits to being the driver and having parked on the premises. The area was not familiar to the Defendant and but remembers clearly the events of the date as it was the one and only time he had ever visited the area. As he was in a class he parked and paid for a ticket to park his vehicle whilst he was in class. The defendant also clearly remembers going back to the vehicle shortly before the expiry of the original ticket to purchase a second ticket to extend the time allowed for his vehicle to be parked. The tickets were both displayed at the time on the dashboard of the vehicle. This information should be available to the Claimant in their machine logs of VRMs on the date in question. 

4.    The Claimant claims in the Notice to Hirer/Keeper that "Payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage". The Defendant appealed to the Claimant explaining that he had paid for parking on the date in question however the Claimant rejected the appeal. The Defendant is certain he paid for two tickets on the day in question and theachine logs should reflect the Defendant's VRM, or at least a close partial match. 

5.      If the machine did not accurately record the VRM then this must have been due to an error on the machine which prevented the VRM of the Defendant being logged correctly. In this case the Claimant should have properly considered the Defendant’s appeal by investigating all of the tickets purchased around the time to ensure there were no instances of (fluttering ticket situations) or of the machine registering keystrokes of VRMs wrongly. If the Claimant is claiming that the Defendent did not make a "payment... In accordance with the terms displayed on the signage" then they must provide strict proof of this.

nosferatu1001

1) No, that isnt what C-M said. Dont leap. What it did was make people think it was a magic phrase that made it all go away, or that it was a true "defence" when of course it cannot be, etc.
People fixated on it
Para 7 mentions double recovery
attempting double recovery IS an abuse of process
SO you can see it is the same.

bergkamp10

nosferatu1001 said:

1) No, that isnt what C-M said. Dont leap. What it did was make people think it was a magic phrase that made it all go away, or that it was a true "defence" when of course it cannot be, etc.
People fixated on it
Para 7 mentions double recovery
attempting double recovery IS an abuse of process
SO you can see it is the same.

Ok I understand. Thanks for the response.

In that case would it not still have been preferable to keep it in? I mean the whole defence with all the different arguments made are well done and may also seem like a true defence but it still depends on the WS any rebuttals from the PPC, the argument of the claimant during the hearing and the judge. So nothing is certain.

with regards to the double recovery, I understand that it could be considered an abuse of process, but I am thinking along the lines of PPCs continually adding these charges and receiving many payments from a large proportion of drivers/hirers who have not had the benefit of this forum/other legal advice. Those who have either just paid or had CCJs put against them. Is this point covered (explicitly or otherwise) in the defence? Would it not make for a more compelling defence to add that, even if we remove any mention of abuse of process?

nosferatu1001

No, of course it wasnt preferable. People didnt understand what it meant
If you want to argue, do it on another thread, because you will not change the template here. 

Your second point has zero legs. It is not a defence to YOUR claim. if you are claiming they are making systematic false claims, then that is far beyond the remit of YOUR CLAIM, and you would be looking to get a civil restraint order aghainst them. Can you afford to fund that? 

bergkamp10

nosferatu1001 said:

No, of course it wasnt preferable. People didnt understand what it meant
If you want to argue, do it on another thread, because you will not change the template here. 

Your second point has zero legs. It is not a defence to YOUR claim. if you are claiming they are making systematic false claims, then that is far beyond the remit of YOUR CLAIM, and you would be looking to get a civil restraint order aghainst them. Can you afford to fund that? 

Not arguing mate. It was a question. Obviously you all have a lot more understanding than  me so the questions I am asking are just giving me a better understanding. That's all. No offence intended.

The claim isn't my claim, it's my friends, but point taken. I only mention that as it was, to me at least, one of the main reasons the Judge in the Excel Parking case struck their claim. But thank you.

bergkamp10

Can we just get a review or comments on the draft defence shared above and leave these other discussions for another time? Thank you.

nosferatu1001

I dislike prhrases such as "This information should be available to the Claimant in their machine logs of VRMs on the date in question. "
Make it more punchy. Put them to strict proof that these payments were not recorded
I would also be more certain at the start. State the full and correct VRM was entered by the defendant on first and then second occasion, as makes sense above. Makes your point about the machine not correctly recording it more certain

bergkamp10

nosferatu1001 said:

I dislike prhrases such as "This information should be available to the Claimant in their machine logs of VRMs on the date in question. "
Make it more punchy. Put them to strict proof that these payments were not recorded
I would also be more certain at the start. State the full and correct VRM was entered by the defendant on first and then second occasion, as makes sense above. Makes your point about the machine not correctly recording it more certain

Thank you. I will make a couple changes and revert back in 5-10 mins.