Claim form for parking over 5 years ago

Jenni_D

We also need to factor that the poster is new to the forum and may not know how to use it fully. Hell, I've been here 9 months and still get confused at times! 😂

Edit: C-m, you must be slacking then. 😉

outsidechancex

Coupon-mad said:

You haven’t gone and found the other one about the US dates.  I did tell you “same advice”. 

You only need to read my replies from yesterday to find it. (No idea which username or case it was).

I have finally found this after several hours - was looking before your reply but finally grasped the best way to search for this after various attempts. Thank you!

Updated defence draft:

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

 

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 denies that they used this site or that the car was there at all, on 04/12/201X which is a Sunday, meaning the Defendant was at home and so was the car. The Claimant is put to strict proof.  

4.       In the alternative, if the Claimant applies to formally amend their particulars to show a different date, then the Defendant is aware of the following incident. The Defendant was parked in Lower Loveday Street car park, Birmingham. At the time this was a 24 hour car park with a £3.00 per 24 hour tariff. The Defendant entered the car park to renew a Pay and Display Ticket due to expire. The Defendant went to the Pay and Display Ticket machine prior to the expiry of the existing Pay and Display Ticket and inserted £3.00 in coins into the machine. After entering the coins and pressing the button no ticket was dispensed from the Pay and Display Machine. The Defendant proceeded to spend several minutes reading the car park signage, which contained a large amount of text of varying size and font, to seek a helpline number. The Defendant then proceeded to call the helpline number to report a fault with the machine. The Defendant was told the fault had been logged and to continue to park. The Defendant was dubious but trusted this had been logged. The Defendant did pay for their stay, however a fault with the Pay and Display Machine meant no ticket was dispensed.  

Coupon-mad

Yep and that’s why I added:

You only need to read my replies from yesterday to find it. (No idea which username or case it was).

Read my replies from (now) the day before yesterday.

Doing the search for a newbie is such a misstep that we must avoid it at all costs because they won’t be armed to search and use the forum properly later, when they will need to be doing the next stages.

Jenni_D

Pedantry ...

2. if you weren't there (nor was the car) then how can you admit to being the driver? (I can see why you've said it [para 4], but I'm not sure it should be said)
3. strict proof of what?
4. I'll let others comment on this - it reads more like a witness statement, and if the claim is for an invalid date then I'm not sure this para helps: a judge may just let the claimant get away with erroneous claim filing. I wonder if 4 should be more like:

4. In the alternative, if the Claimant applies to formally amend their particulars to show a different date, then the Defendant seeks leave to file an amended defence in accordance with the amended Particulars of Claim

outsidechancex

Coupon-mad said:

Yep and that’s why I added:

You only need to read my replies from yesterday to find it. (No idea which username or case it was).

Read my replies from (now) the day before yesterday.

Doing the search for a newbie is such a misstep that we must avoid it at all costs because they won’t be armed to search and use the forum properly later, when they will need to be doing the next stages.

Thanks. I updated my defence (above) based on your replies yesterday.

Johnersh

I really wouldn't have para 4.  You have no way of knowing if this is an error or whether there may be two claims, so deal with the case alleged. 

If it were me I'd deny the claim and say notwithstanding an SAR for a complete file of records pertaining to the o/p and that vehicle they have failed to supply any evidence of the vehicle having been parked or a PCN being issued. Presumably there has been no pre-action correspondence relating to it either? 

You don't want a kindly DJ to permit an amendment on the basis that you broadly were aware of the issue or it being an obvious error.  You are required to respond to their pleaded case and that is 4 December.

The cheapest way for the ppc to fix it will be for them to discontinue and to issue a new claim.

***if this is a transposed date, do double check that it is the claim form that's wrong and not the photo.***

outsidechancex

Jenni_D said:

Pedantry ...

2. if you weren't there (nor was the car) then how can you admit to being the driver? (I can see why you've said it [para 4], but I'm not sure it should be said)
3. strict proof of what?
4. I'll let others comment on this - it reads more like a witness statement, and if the claim is for an invalid date then I'm not sure this para helps: a judge may just let the claimant get away with erroneous claim filing. I wonder if 4 should be more like:

4. In the alternative, if the Claimant applies to formally amend their particulars to show a different date, then the Defendant seeks leave to file an amended defence in accordance with the amended Particulars of Claim

Ok, so best to admit keeper at the time but not the driver, and adapt para 4 to the above? 

Redx

outsidechancex said:

Jenni_D said:

Pedantry ...

2. if you weren't there (nor was the car) then how can you admit to being the driver? (I can see why you've said it [para 4], but I'm not sure it should be said)
3. strict proof of what?
4. I'll let others comment on this - it reads more like a witness statement, and if the claim is for an invalid date then I'm not sure this para helps: a judge may just let the claimant get away with erroneous claim filing. I wonder if 4 should be more like:

4. In the alternative, if the Claimant applies to formally amend their particulars to show a different date, then the Defendant seeks leave to file an amended defence in accordance with the amended Particulars of Claim

Ok, so best to admit keeper at the time but not the driver, and adapt para 4 to the above? 

Yes if it's true , because they then have to prove POFA compliance , but whatever you do , do not lie

outsidechancex

Johnersh said:

I really wouldn't have para 4.  You have no way of knowing if this is an error or whether there may be two claims, so deal with the case alleged. 

If it were me I'd deny the claim and say notwithstanding an SAR for a complete file of records pertaining to the o/p and that vehicle they have failed to supply any evidence of the vehicle having been parked or a PCN being issued. Presumably there has been no pre-action correspondence relating to it either? 

You don't want a kindly DJ to permit an amendment on the basis that you broadly were aware of the issue or it being an obvious error.  You are required to respond to their pleaded case and that is 4 December.

The cheapest way for the ppc to fix it will be for them to discontinue and to issue a new claim.

***if this is a transposed date, do double check that it is the claim form that's wrong and not the photo.***

I submitted a SAR to excel. Picture of PCN is dated 12/04/201X. Whereas the PCN details on the claim form are 04/12/201X.

Is it best to defend based on there being no PCN for 04/12/201X and get rid of para 4 (mine or that proposed by Jenni_D)? 

outsidechancex

Redx said:

outsidechancex said:

Jenni_D said:

Pedantry ...

2. if you weren't there (nor was the car) then how can you admit to being the driver? (I can see why you've said it [para 4], but I'm not sure it should be said)
3. strict proof of what?
4. I'll let others comment on this - it reads more like a witness statement, and if the claim is for an invalid date then I'm not sure this para helps: a judge may just let the claimant get away with erroneous claim filing. I wonder if 4 should be more like:

4. In the alternative, if the Claimant applies to formally amend their particulars to show a different date, then the Defendant seeks leave to file an amended defence in accordance with the amended Particulars of Claim

Ok, so best to admit keeper at the time but not the driver, and adapt para 4 to the above? 

Yes if it's true , because they then have to prove POFA compliance , but whatever you do , do not lie

I guess this relates to the whole issue with the contradictory dates. I was the keeper of the vehicle but it was not parked there on the date given for the PCN on the claim form (04/12/201X). Whereas I would have been the driver and parked there on the date of the PCN that I received from a SAR (12/04/201X)?