Autosec DCB Legal - PCN from 2017 (Resident Parking)

Coupon-mad

No idea, what's your stage? 

You know what 'no keeper liability' means and the NEWBIES thread explains all stages and it tells you about non-POFA PCNs as well (in the first post about appealing cases).

Chemist_7

Coupon-mad said:

No idea, what's your stage? 

You know what 'no keeper liability' means and the NEWBIES thread explains all stages and it tells you about non-POFA PCNs as well (in the first post about appealing cases).

I did appeal but did not receive any responses at all back in 2017. 

And now, I just received a Claim Form from CCBC dated 26th of Nov, and filed AoS today.

Coupon-mad

So your defence must be on the same basis as your appeal.  For example if you appealed in 2017 admitting to driving you can't pretend now in a defence that you don't know. 

Chemist_7

Coupon-mad said:

So your defence must be on the same basis as your appeal.  For example if you appealed in 2017 admitting to driving you can't pretend now in a defence that you don't know. 

Thank you @Coupon-mad.

Here is first attempt at drafting my defence from referring to other similar cases on this forum, would really appreciate any comments/ guidance. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 driver of the vehicle in question [car reg] but liability is denied.  

3.     On [date] 2017, Defendant received a Parking Charge Notice from Autosec for not displaying parking permit at [address].  The Defendant was a tenant at this location from [date] 2014 to [date] 2020. At some point in 2017, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate. There are no terms within the original tenancy agreement requiring tenant to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.

4.     The car park area at [address] contains allocated parking spaces for residents with flat number marked in each bay, and some unmarked parking spaces for visitors. It is denied that the Defendant were in breach of any parking conditions when parked in allocated bay marked [flat number]  

(this following part I’m not sure if I should include, since the parking allocation isn’t mentioned in my tenancy agreement but the bay marking is self explanatory? Or does it sound repetitive from point 3? )
The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the tenancy agreement, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The agreement provides the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit.

(and is this necessary to mentioned I appealed?)
5.     Upon receiving a Parking Charge Notice on [date] 2017, the Defendant had also submitted appeal letter to Claimant within the 28 days but did not receive any response.

(rest of the points from template to be included)

Le_Kirk

I think you should include the part after your paragraph 4 but maybe combine it with 3&4 to make one cohesive paragraph.  The idea is to make sure you mention it in the defence so you can back it up and support it later at the witness statement stage.  I have no issue with leaving in your paragraph 5 as it shows the judge you were "trying to narrow the issue" and will help if it comes to an argument about the claimant being unreasonable by failing to do the same.

Chemist_7

Le_Kirk said:

I think you should include the part after your paragraph 4 but maybe combine it with 3&4 to make one cohesive paragraph.  The idea is to make sure you mention in in the defence so you can back it up and support it later at the witness statement stage.  I have no issue with leaving in your paragraph 5 as it shows the judge you were "trying to narrow the issue" and will help if it comes to an argument about the claimant being unreasonable by failing to do the same.

Thank you for your advice @Le_Kirk!

Chemist_7

Another question:

Looking back at my previous appeal to Autosec, someone I didn’t know parked in my bay one day.
This was after I received the PCN.

Would it be useful for me to include this incident to show Autosec “failed” to do their job in preventing unauthorised parking? 

Coupon-mad

Maybe it was the Autosec ticketer.  We've seen that a lot, PPC ticketers at residential car parks seem to think they can park in any old bay (and they can).

I'd be stating you think it was the ticketer who used to take up space in a resident's bay then lurk and issue predatory PCNs just like clampers used to (Autosec were clampers).

May as well throw that at him,  it's not as if he's going to reply.

Rodent3768

If it was a black 4x4 it would have been PDG himself.

D_P_Dance

These companies have no place in residential car parks   They make flats more difficult to rent and depress resale values.  Every occupant should do their upmost to get them removed.