Please Help - 3 County Court Claims covering 11 Parking Control Management resi parking tickets

fazzyp1000

The claim with the dodgy date is also worded differently to the other 2. It says "The driver of the Vehicles agreed to pay the PCNs within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so".

This is totally incorrect. I have ignored all PCNs and all correspondence from the parking company and their agents. (I know this probably wasn't the smartest idea, but due to the sheer volume of tickets received on a very frequent basis from simply parking in outside my own home, I found it extremely stressful and almost impossible to manage the admin alongside work and family responsibilities).

Should I refer to this factual error in my defence and is there any particular defence I can make based on this error?

KeithP

fazzyp1000 said:

The claim with the dodgy date is also worded differently to the other 2. It says "The driver of the Vehicles agreed to pay the PCNs within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so".

This is totally incorrect. I have ignored all PCNs and all correspondence from the parking company and their agents. (I know this probably wasn't the smartest idea, but due to the sheer volume of tickets received on a very frequent basis from simply parking in outside my own home, I found it extremely stressful and almost impossible to manage the admin alongside work and family responsibilities).

Should I refer to this factual error in my defence and is there any particular defence I can make based on this error?

I wouldn't bother referring to that 'factual error'.

The allegation is that by parking the driver agreed to the terms of the contract.

Those contract terms are the terms on the signs.

Almost certainly there is a term on the signs stating something like "if the driver doesn't park in accordance with the rules then he agrees to pay £nn within 28 days...".

fazzyp1000

KeithP said:

fazzyp1000 said:

The claim with the dodgy date is also worded differently to the other 2. It says "The driver of the Vehicles agreed to pay the PCNs within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so".

This is totally incorrect. I have ignored all PCNs and all correspondence from the parking company and their agents. (I know this probably wasn't the smartest idea, but due to the sheer volume of tickets received on a very frequent basis from simply parking in outside my own home, I found it extremely stressful and almost impossible to manage the admin alongside work and family responsibilities).

Should I refer to this factual error in my defence and is there any particular defence I can make based on this error?

I wouldn't bother referring to that 'factual error'.

The allegation is that by parking the driver agreed to the terms of the contract.

Those contract terms are the terms on the signs.

Almost certainly there is a term on the signs stating something like "if the driver doesn't park in accordance with the rules then he agrees to pay £nn within 28 days...".

Thanks, fair enough, I won't bother with that then.

Any thoughts on how best to deal with the fictional PCN? (I suspect its a typo and they were meaning to make a claim for a PCN on a different date)

Coupon-mad

Is it a US version, transposing the date?  We have had a few like that recently, where @Johnersh advises a flat denial of any breach on the claimed date.

Johnersh

A lot depends on *exactly* what the poc say.

Apparently a hearing date has been set. For May 2022!

Lest anyone forgets what a 50% cut to justice budget looks like. Fewer courts, judges and hearings, with longer waits. I mean it's good life advice generally, but don't get arrested... 

Le_Kirk

As well as informing the court, you should send a Data Rectification Notice to the PPC informing them of your new address for service and requiring them to ERASE your old data and to inform all and any of their agents and sub-contractors, which should include the solicitors they are using (it will be on the claim form).

fazzyp1000

Coupon-mad said:

Is it a US version, transposing the date?  We have had a few like that recently, where @Johnersh advises a flat denial of any breach on the claimed date.

No I think it's a really random error. The date is 13th Jan but I suspect the one they are referring to is 13th August. No idea though just speculating. Thanks I'll look up the wording and use that

On a separate note, I didn't include this point in my 1st defence, but my wife and I share both cars and are insured on both. They're both in my name, but genuinely I've got no record of who was driving them on each of the days where PCNs were issued. Is this a relevant point in defence or does it just complicate unnecessarily?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

PCM probably used the POFA for 'keeper liability' so whether you were driving or not won't matter as they are pursuing you as keeper.

You say 'first defence' so are you now at WS stage or have you got a second claim to defend now for similar PCNs from different dates?  

fazzyp1000

Coupon-mad said:

PCM probably used the POFA for 'keeper liability' so whether you were driving or not won't matter as they are pursuing you as keeper.

You say 'first defence' so are you now at WS stage or have you got a second claim to defend now for similar PCNs from different dates?  

Thanks fair enough

For their 1st/ original claim that I started this thread about, I'm now at court stage. I have a hearing date in May 2022.

But they've also hit me with 2 further court claims, which I need to submit defences for. (By Monday). I plan to use pretty much the same arguments as the 1st defence you helped me with, with the addition of the Henderson argument.

nicestrawb

I'm fairly sure that they should be combining all claims into one, but someone else will know better...