PCN Received from New Generation Parking Management - Advice Required

nero33

Coupon-mad said:

Corrected, ta.

A quick question regarding the format/font/text sizing of the suggested Defence.  I looked at your post #2 here, 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

Are they the actual fonts/sizes to be used, as the main font and size is Helvetica 10.5 & in a couple of places it is Inherit 10.5

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Good question. No they aren't. That's just what the forum post did automatically!

Pretty sure in the NEWBIES thread section headed: IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN, there's a link to bargepole's court procedures thread that tells you about the font and line spacing that courts/Judges prefer.

I'm not going to say here what that font actually is because reading bargepole's thread is vital anyway!  The only thing that's out of date in his thread is that we now use email to file a defence, not post.

nero33

Coupon-mad said:

Good question. No they aren't. That's just what the forum post did automatically!

Pretty sure in the NEWBIES thread section headed: IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN, there's a link to bargepole's court procedures thread that tells you about the font and line spacing that courts/Judges prefer.

I'm not going to say here what that font actually is because reading bargepole's thread is vital anyway!  The only thing that's out of date in his thread is that we now use email to file a defence, not post.

Many thanks!

nero33

This is my 1st stab at putting all the advice I've been given to date, for my Defence

"

IN THE COUNTY COURT

 

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

NEW GENERATION PARKING MANAGEMENT LTD

(Claimant) 

- and -  

xx xxxxx xxxxx

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

 

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed or at all.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but all liability is denied.

3.  The Defendant's wife was driving, and she went over to their daughter's apartment to pick up the Defendant's mother who had been visiting. The passenger was aged 79, had had a stroke, was suffering from severe mobility issues and was unable to walk unassisted so clearly needed the Defendants wife's help to leave the flat and safely access the vehicle.  This had been done previously without any issues or incident.

4.  The Defendant's wife parked the car in a part of car park that was also used as a 'drop off/pick up point'. At this place, there was no need to display the Defendant's mother's Blue Badge because dropping off/picking passengers up from there (and loading/unloading) was always allowed. It was not regarded as a restricted area.

5.  The Defendant will also produce evidence from the landlord confirming this normal usage of that area, and will also rely upon the persuasive Appeal authority of a similar private parking residential case, Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Securities [B9GF0A9E] – 2016, where the judgment by His Honour Judge Harris QC, sitting at Oxford Court, supported the defence that loading and unloading, including people as well as goods is not parking.  The defendant will also produce photographic evidence confirming how the defendant’s daughter’s assigned parking bay was regularly blocked by other unauthorised vehicles.

6.  The visitor being collected was elderly with clearly visible mobility issues, therefore had protected characteristics in accordance with the Equality Act 2010. The parking employee saw the Defendant's wife and the disabled passenger but refused to speak to them when approached and (despite seeing the needs of the passenger) used his predatory photos to later upload and create a postal Parking Charge Notice which was sent to the Defendant, demanding £100.   It is reasonable to assume that had the employee engaged in conversation, instead of leaving, it could have been demonstrated that the defendant had a right to leave their car in the car park, that no PCN would have been issued, and litigation could have been avoided.

Service providers such as the claimant are required by law to make reasonable adjustments for people with a disability. In this instance it would have been reasonable adjustment to allow the defendant a longer grace period than normally allowed to reach the vehicle with their disabled passenger and allowed to leave the car nearer to the resident's property for the purposes of boarding said vehicle.

The defendant asserts that this was the case and puts the claimant to strict proof that the opposite is true. 

7. It is also stated in the Tenancy Agreement, Section 8.1 that ‘the Landlord shall permit the Tenant to have quiet enjoyment of the Property without interruption by the Landlord or his Agent’. 

The claimant should have been aware of the resident's rights and ability to confer their rights to visitors in according to the resident's lease before commenting operations on the site.

8.  This was neither an agreed nor fair contract and nor was there a breach of any 'relevant obligation' a condition required under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA) before any case where liability is sought to be transferred to a registered keeper can get off the ground.  It is denied that the Defendant is liable for any sum at all.

9.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of its compliance with Schedule 4 of the POFA and the EA, as well as showing how they met their statutory duties under the additional EHRC Services, Public Functions and Associations Statutory Code of Practice relating to the EA duty of public-facing companies to avoid discrimination. The parking charge in itself, and the ensuing hounding of the family through court, represents unlawful harassment of a disabled person and their carer, and the lack of 'reasonable adjustments' and failure to recognise the proper use of this pick up area, breaches the EA and also rides roughshod over the rights of the resident and her visitors.”

================================================================================================

I appreciate you guys taking a look at this and also for the time spent assisting me to date,  thanks

Fruitcake

That reads more like a witness statement and needs to be slimmed down, but still retain the main points.

In fact, save it and use it later as the WS.

Coupon-mad

Very good, a very strong defence position.

Add in the missing paragraph numbering because you have some un-numbered paras there.

And remove the first 'also' here:

5.  The Defendant will also produce evidence from the landlord confirming this normal usage of that area, and will also rely upon the persuasive Appeal authority

nero33

Coupon-mad said:

Very good, a very strong defence position.

Add in the missing paragraph numbering because you have some un-numbered paras there.

And remove the first 'also' here:

5.  The Defendant will also produce evidence from the landlord confirming this normal usage of that area, and will also rely upon the persuasive Appeal authority

Cheers!

I'll do that, thanks.

Do I need to refer to 'Appendix 1, Appendix 2 etc etc' in this Defence?  Eg refer to photos or evidence that I find might support my case.

Or save that for another date? 

Needs to be submitted to the email address by 17th Oct Monday 4pm.  Should I wait until Monday morning or will this weekend be fine?

Fruitcake

Nothing goes with the defence. Photos, exhibits, and evidence all go with the witness statement much later in the process.

KeithP

nero33 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Very good, a very strong defence position.

Add in the missing paragraph numbering because you have some un-numbered paras there.

And remove the first 'also' here:

5.  The Defendant will also produce evidence from the landlord confirming this normal usage of that area, and will also rely upon the persuasive Appeal authority

Needs to be submitted to the email address by 17th Oct Monday 4pm.  Should I wait until Monday morning or will this weekend be fine?

It is usually suggested here to file a Defence during normal working hours.
Too often we have seen Defences 'disappear' when filed overnight or at weekends, so whenever you file it, make sure you get the automated receipt email from the CCBC as proof.

1505grandad

Pedantic observation  -  should this read "in accordance with"  (if not yet filed):-

"The claimant should have been aware of the resident's rights and ability to confer their rights to visitors in according to the resident's lease before commenting operations on the site."