Autosec DCB Legal - PCN from 2017 (Resident Parking)

Chemist_7

Coupon-mad said:

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

Thanks @Coupon-mad

From memory, it was a car with visitor permit or someone with permit for a different bay. And annoyingly it was parked overnight as well (but I don’t have photos record in day light).

D_P_Dance

If it happens again google "calthrop".  

hullensien

That will act in a similar manner to a wet teabag with nails sticking through it……………… allegedly 

Chemist_7

D_P_Dance said:

If it happens again google "calthrop".  

I guess lucky for me since I have moved out from the flat now!

 

Chemist_7

Here is my second attempt in drafting my defence, re-shuffled some of the points between 3 and 4, elaborated on point 5 and also added point 6 about the other parking incident- 


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. 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] . 

4. 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. 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.

5.     Upon receiving a Parking Charge Notice on [date] Oct 2017, the Defendant had also submitted appeal letter to Claimant on [date] November 2017 (within 28 days). The Claimant had only provided instructions for letter appeal which stated a response will be provided within 14 working days, and should the appeal is unsuccessful, the Defendant will receive contact details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA) and a unique reference. And to date, the Defendant did not receive any of the above.

6.    It should also be noted in a separate incident, the Claimant company had failed to respond to the Defendant's compliant of a reported case of unauthorised vehicle parked in the Defendant's parking bay on [date] November 2017. 


(rest of the points from template to be included)

Jenni_D

6 ... complaint

Although I'm not sure this has any relevance for the defence.

Point 5 you may wish to expand the point to aver that the Claimant's poor administration has led to them filing a claim which could have been resolved without the necessity of court action, and their action has been in breach of their trade association's Code of Practice. Then you could use what is currently point 6 in your witness statement as an example of their poor administration.

Coupon-mad

Yep, remove 6 from the defence.

Le_Kirk

It is denied that the Defendant were was in breach of any parking conditions when parked in allocated bay marked [flat number] . 

Change suggested above and below.  Are you defending as driver or as keeper and driver?  Your point 2 needs clarifying.

And to To date, the Defendant did not receive has not received any of the above.

Chemist_7

@Jenni_D

Thank you for pointing out the typo! 
Will amend point 5 and remove point 6 based on yours and @Coupon-mad's advice.
 

Chemist_7

Le_Kirk said:

It is denied that the Defendant were was in breach of any parking conditions when parked in allocated bay marked [flat number] . 

Change suggested above and below.  Are you defending as driver or as keeper and driver?  Your point 2 needs clarifying.

And to To date, the Defendant did not receive has not received any of the above.

Thanks @Le_Kirk! 

I am both the keeper and the driver, and in my appeal letter from 2017 I had mentioned I was driving.
Would it be OK to keep point 2 as it is?