Private Parking Fine Template Advice

BWilkinson95

Hi there,
I was wondering if anyone would be able and willing to have a read over the points I've written for a PCN that is going to court?
I've used the template on here, but I'm not sure whether my points are the right sort of thing that need including. I'd be very grateful if anyone could please advise!
Apologies if I haven't put this in the right place.
I've copied and pasted my points as I can't upload a word document; point 9 onwards is the rest of the template, and obviously I'll be putting in the starting heading etc.
Thank you in advance!

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

 3.  The Defendant was originally fined £80 on the 1st October 2018 on Hollycross car park of Keele University for failing to display a parking permit. The Defendant was, and remains to be, a student at Keele University. The Defendant paid, collected and displayed the parking permit on the day of the incident (1st October, 2018). The Defendant had been awarded the permit on the 28th September, 2018.

 4. The Defendant lost two appeals submitted directly to the Claimant and their appeals process (POPLA). The Claimant has pursued the case against the Defendant on the basis that the Defendant is liable for admitting to driving.

 5. The Defendant has provided medical evidence detailing a need to drive to Keele University campus, as other means of transport are not optional due to health issues. The Defendant was required to pick up the permit from campus, therefore the Defendant had to park on Hollycross car park on the date of the incident to collect the permit.

 6. The Claimant fined the Defendant on the incident date within five minutes of the Defendant parking. The land owner had stated that students collecting permits (in this instance, the Defendant), could park for twenty minutes without incurring a parking fine. The Claimant therefore breached the grace period, and breached their contract with the land owner.

 7. The Defendant highlighted to both the claimant and the land owner’s parking team how the terms and conditions regarding parking on campus, as detailed by the Keele University website, had not been breached. For example, the Defendant highlighted that the Keele website did not advise that the vehicle must be displaying a permit, only that they must hold one. As detailed above, the Defendant had been awarded a permit on the 28th September 2018; three days prior to the incident at hand. The Defendant reiterated that the permit was collected and displayed on the day of the 1st October 2018. The Defendant attached evidence that the permit was collected on the 1st October 2018.

 8. The Defendant also wrote that the writing on the signage that detailed how a permit is needed to be displayed was significantly smaller, and does not support the Claimant’s statements that the signage was: “appropriately printed, clear and legible”. The Defendant also provided evidence that the terms on the signage were different to those on the website. The land owner had requested via their website that all students were aware of the parking terms prior to parking on campus; the Defendant had done so, but as above, the terms online differed to those on the signage.

9.  The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case and the quantum has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on the signage that the Claimant may be relying upon.  Claiming ‘costs/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, para 5.14.3.  That is the official Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA 2015') legislation which must be considered, given the duty in s71.  The Defendant avers that the CRA 2015 has been breached due to unfair terms and/or unclear notices (signs), pursuant to s62 and with regard to the requirements for transparency and good faith, and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 and 18 in Sch2.  NB: this is different from the UTCCRs considered by the Supreme Court, in that there is now a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.

Le_Kirk

First of all before I have even read your defence, have you received a court claim form (N1) and if so, what its the date of issue?  Have you submitted the AoS and if so, what date?
Secondly, they are not "fines" they are speculative invoices.
Thirdly, your defence reads more like a witness statement (WS), a narrative.  Defences should be short, punchy and contain legal/technical arguments that open the door to allow you to back up and provide evidence at WS stage.  Take into account what @Redx and @Fruitcake have said and the re-read the standard defence template, it seems you have misread it.

Redx

2 doesn't seem correct to me , it doesn't say if the keeper was the driver , was not the driver , or isn't known , it should probably say keeper and driver

It should deny liability , not admit liability

Fruitcake

It is not a fine. Do not use the word fine or fined in your defence.

Most of that (the story of what happened on the day) should be saved for the witness statement.

You should include a defence point about a breach of the Equality Act 2010 by the university and their agents, the claimant, for not allowing reasonable adjustments to a disabled person. This is not an option. An allowance should have been made anticipating a disabled persons needs, and the PCN should have been cancelled once both the university and the claimant were aware of a person with a disability, having protected characteristics in accordance with the above Act.

You should also include frustration of contract, since the defendant could not display a permit until it had been collected. This is also a clause of impossibility, again because it was impossible for the defendant to display a permit until they had collected it from the university office.
In addition, the signs requiring a permit to be displayed before it was physically possible to obtain the permit is an unfair contract term and thus breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

As well as defending this, you should be giving the university admin and elders a good hammering, pointing out all of the above.
Get local and national press involved as well as your MP. If there is a uni newsletter/social media presence, report it to them as well, and the student union, even if you are not a member.
The Daily Mail especially are very fond of publishing these stories.

BWilkinson95

Fruitcake said:

It is not a fine. Do not use the word fine or fined in your defence.

Most of that (the story of what happened on the day) should be saved for the witness statement.

You should include a defence point about a breach of the Equality Act 2010 by the university and their agents, the claimant, for not allowing reasonable adjustments to a disabled person. This is not an option. An allowance should have been made anticipating a disabled persons needs, and the PCN should have been cancelled once both the university and the claimant were aware of a person with a disability, having protected characteristics in accordance with the above Act.

You should also include frustration of contract, since the defendant could not display a permit until it had been collected. This is also a clause of impossibility, again because it was impossible for the defendant to display a permit until they had collected it from the university office.
In addition, the signs requiring a permit to be displayed before it was physically possible to obtain the permit is an unfair contract term and thus breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Thank you for this advice, this is really useful!
Just to add though, it wasn't a permit I was granted for disability, but just as a student I was allowed to apply for a permit so that we can park on campus. I had a medical note saying I couldn't walk to campus due to a back injury, so they gave me a permit so that I could drive there.

Fruitcake

BWilkinson95 said:

Fruitcake said:

It is not a fine. Do not use the word fine or fined in your defence.

Most of that (the story of what happened on the day) should be saved for the witness statement.

You should include a defence point about a breach of the Equality Act 2010 by the university and their agents, the claimant, for not allowing reasonable adjustments to a disabled person. This is not an option. An allowance should have been made anticipating a disabled persons needs, and the PCN should have been cancelled once both the university and the claimant were aware of a person with a disability, having protected characteristics in accordance with the above Act.

You should also include frustration of contract, since the defendant could not display a permit until it had been collected. This is also a clause of impossibility, again because it was impossible for the defendant to display a permit until they had collected it from the university office.
In addition, the signs requiring a permit to be displayed before it was physically possible to obtain the permit is an unfair contract term and thus breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Thank you for this advice, this is really useful!
Just to add though, it wasn't a permit I was granted for disability, but just as a student I was allowed to apply for a permit so that we can park on campus. I had a medical note saying I couldn't walk to campus due to a back injury, so they gave me a permit so that I could drive there.

It is for the claimant to disprove any points you make, so include everything. I have added more comments to my previous post. It is quite common for the regulars to do this, and I see Le-Kirk has done so as well, so it is always advisable to go back and re-read comments for this reason.

Le_Kirk

Did you complain to the University about the actions of their sub-contractor?  What did they say?  This must have happened before, why not see if they can have it cancelled - even at this stage.

BWilkinson95

Fruitcake said:

It is not a fine. Do not use the word fine or fined in your defence.

Most of that (the story of what happened on the day) should be saved for the witness statement.

You should include a defence point about a breach of the Equality Act 2010 by the university and their agents, the claimant, for not allowing reasonable adjustments to a disabled person. This is not an option. An allowance should have been made anticipating a disabled persons needs, and the PCN should have been cancelled once both the university and the claimant were aware of a person with a disability, having protected characteristics in accordance with the above Act.

You should also include frustration of contract, since the defendant could not display a permit until it had been collected. This is also a clause of impossibility, again because it was impossible for the defendant to display a permit until they had collected it from the university office.
In addition, the signs requiring a permit to be displayed before it was physically possible to obtain the permit is an unfair contract term and thus breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

As well as defending this, you should be giving the university admin and elders a good hammering, pointing out all of the above.
Get local and national press involved as well as your MP. If there is a uni newsletter/social media presence, report it to them as well, and the student union, even if you are not a member.
The Daily Mail especially are very fond of publishing these stories.

Ah, okay! That makes sense. When I looked at the template, it just said that if you were driving, then to put points about what happened and what you saw, but I think I've misunderstood it! 
I had included a line about frustration and the physical impossibilities of parking without a permit to collect a permit, but I took it out because I thought it was too story like... But I will put it back in with your notes on clause of impossibility and a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

I've been to the University about this... LOTS. I got the original PCN back in October 2018!! And I've fought it tooth and nail since. I had my last correspondence with the University about it in April 2019, and hadn't heard anything since until I got a letter of a solicitor a few weeks back and then a letter saying it's going to court. The University are refusing for it to be waived. They even asked me to get a letter of support form my school that they would pass on to First Parking in my favour... so I got the senior manager of Humanities to write one for me, and the University just ignored it. Then when I repeatedly chased them over it, they said they could no longer get involved! 

Keele is reknowed for letting their students go to court over parking tickets. I even had a meeting with the head of estates over it and he basically said he can't let me off, because then he would have to let everyone off... despite the fact that I picked up and displayed a permit that same day. He then started arguing that although I have evidence that I picked my permit up that day, the photo I had taken didn't show it in my windscreen, so I might not have displayed it. So trust me when I say, I've tried to resolve it through the University, but they are determined for me to pay!! Keele gets 50% of the PCNS paid on campus, so I can only assume that's why they are refusing to help me.

Thank you so much for your help; I really appreciate it.

Le_Kirk

You do seem to have tried with the UNI.  Just ask them for the names and available dates for whoever is going to attend court as you will be calling them as a witness so you can cross examine them in front of a judge and ask why they allow THEIR sub-contractor to abuse the students in the name of making a profit! 

KeithP

You seem to have missed the questions that @Le_Kirk asked earlier...

Le_Kirk said:

First of all before I have even read your defence, have you received a court claim form (N1) and if so, what its the date of issue?  Have you submitted the AoS and if so, what date?

BWilkinson95

Thank you everyone for the replies! I'm really grateful for the advice. I have re-written it and tried to make it more 'to the point' and tried to support each point with some legislation. Apologies again if this still isn't great; I'm not very smart when it comes to legal jargon, acts, rights etc, so this is hard work for me to understand. I've tried to find, read and understand all the relevant threads on here, but again, I'm sorry if I've missed any key threads/points. My brain is frazzled trying to understand all this! I'm trying my best and doing lots of research, and I really appreciate all the feedback.

This is my new draft:

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.  The Defendant originally received a speculative invoice of £80 from the Claimant on the 1st October 2018 on Hollycross car park of Keele University for failing to display a parking permit. The Defendant paid, collected and displayed the parking permit on the day of the incident (1st October, 2018). The Defendant had been awarded the permit on the 28th September, 2018.

4. The car park signage was unclear: writing stating that a permit needed to be displayed was small, contradicting the Claimant’s statements that the signage was: “appropriately printed, clear and legible”.

 5. The Claimant has breached the terms of The Equality Act 2010, section 20, for not allowing reasonable adjustments. The Defendant has provided medical evidence detailing a need to drive to Keele University campus. The permit was held on campus, therefore the Defendant was required to drive to collect it.

 As this car park is open to student permit holders, the landowner, managing agent, on-site outlets and the private parking company are all 'service-providers' who have a legal duty to adhere to the 'Equality Act Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations' which became law on 6th April 2011.

 6. The Claimant breached their contract with the land owner and breached the BPA Code of Practice (13.4) by not allowing the Defendant the contracted, nor a reasonable, grace period.

The land owner had stated that students collecting permits (in this instance, the Defendant), could park for twenty minutes without incurring a parking charge. The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) declares the grace period to be a minimum of ten minutes: “[parking operators] should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”
For the avoidance of doubt, the second 'grace' period of at least ten minutes (not a maximum, but a minimum) is in addition to the separate, first grace/observation period that must be allowed to allow the time taken to arrive, find a parking bay, lock the car and go over to any machine to read & observe the signage terms, before paying.

The Claimant issued the Defendant with a speculative invoice on the incident date within five minutes of parking.

 7. The Claimant has breached The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 2083) by “irrevocably bind[ing] a consumer to terms that they had no real opportunity of being aware of before the contract was agreed”, by requiring permit holders to be aware of parking regulations on campus prior to parking by reading the land owners guidance, as published on their website, but failing to acknowledge that the online terms differed to those on the signage.

For example, the Defendant highlighted that the land owner’s website did not advise that vehicles must display a permit, only that they must hold one. The Defendant met this requirement. The signage terms however state that a permit must be displayed.

The British Parking Association, in section 4.5 of the BPA Guide to members: Parking Management on private land, quotes the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (62:6): “Under the regulations, a term is ‘unfair’ if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in one party's rights or obligations under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer”. The difference in contracts but expectation to be able to abide by both contracts regardless, favours the Claimant by increasing the opportunity to issue penalty charges, and is therefore in breach of the terms outlines by the BPA, The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, The Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 2083) and The Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Furhter, the signs requiring a permit to be displayed before it was physically possible to obtain the permit is an unfair contract term that breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015. With regards to this term, the Defendant calls upon the clause of impossibility.