UKPC CCJ - URGENT HELP NEEDED FOR RESIDENTIAL CAR PARK - FINAL DEFENCE NEEDS PROOF READING PLEASE

Albie234

Coupon-mad said:

Were you honestly unloading sixteen times and never parked?

Honestly, Id leave it overnight sometimes if I already had the ticket on there, Id take my family member indoors and have to help them and (they were depressed/ physically ill) then I'd leave it, sometimes I'd forget or until I needed to take them home as alternate parking at that time was about 10 minute walk away, as from my knowledge it was for the business' that were not built yet so if it was out of working hours like 8pm or something Id leave it until the morning and move it at 6:30/7am so I know I was never affecting anyone parking there, 

I am aware its not the best/any defence but it just was the situation I found myself in those years ago, I was not firing on all cylinders and Im trying my best to fix the situation, again I really appreciate your help.

Coupon-mad

Ok so state in your defence that the Defendant avers that they were, on most or all occasions, likely to have been merely assisting relatives to board or alight because they were residents with (explain briefly their medical conditions).  This means they met the definition of disability and they and their carers (both protected by the Equality Act 2010) were entitled to the reasonable adjustment of setting down a disabled person including assisted boarding/alighting to/from the flat.  As their carer, transporting them around, it is eminently reasonable for the Defendant to expect time to pick up or set down disabled residents, just as a taxi driver would, without penalty. 

It appears that the Claimant has used possibly an unregistered self ticketer, or a rogue employee to (either issue a PCN on the windscreen or upload photos of the car for postal PCNs behind the driver's back...whichever was the case...?) in two or three minutes flat.  It appears the vehicle was targeted and it is averred that the ticketer must have seen the difficulties of the passenger(s) as they lurked and waited for the vehicle to be unattended each time.  At no point did any ticketer engage with the occupants of the car and the entire aim appears to be income generation, with no regard for the legitimate interests of the residents.

It is the Defendant's position that this amounts to serial predatory ticketing of residents and their visitors/carers.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of each parking event in terms of allowing a fair consideration period and should provide a witness statement from that person.

There is no evidence of the vehicle being left parked and, whilst the Defendant recalls that they did sometimes go indoors, it is too long ago to be sure which claimed events may have been parking, as opposed to setting down of the Claimant's disabled resident relatives.

The burden lies with the Claimant who has failed to establish the facts or cause of action and has even duplicated dates in their particulars.  Further, the Claimant has added the BPA's capped £70 for the purported letters/admin they call 'debt recovery' (which is disputed because a parking charge covers the letter chain to keepers) nineteen times, inflating their claim by almost £1400.  This smacks of abusive and unreasonable conduct, being clear double recovery.

Albie234

Coupon-mad said:

Ok so state in your defence that the Defendant avers that they were, on most or all occasions, likely to have been merely assisting relatives to board or alight because they were residents with (explain briefly their medical conditions).  This means they met the definition of disability and they and their carers (both protected by the Equality Act 2010) were entitled to the reasonable adjustment of setting down a disabled person including assisted boarding/alighting to/from the flat.  As their carer, transporting them around, it is eminently reasonable for the Defendant to expect time to pick up or set down disabled residents, just as a taxi driver would, without penalty. 

It appears that the Claimant has used possibly an unregistered self ticketer, or a rogue employee to (either issue a PCN on the windscreen or upload photos of the car for postal PCNs behind the driver's back...whichever was the case...?) in two or three minutes flat.  It appears the vehicle was targeted and it is averred that the ticketer must have seen the difficulties of the passenger(s) as they lurked and waited for the vehicle to be unattended each time.  At no point did any ticketer engage with the occupants of the car and the entire aim appears to be income generation, with no regard for the legitimate interests of the residents.

It is the Defendant's position that this amounts to serial predatory ticketing of residents and their visitors/carers.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of each parking event in terms of allowing a fair consideration period and should provide a witness statement from that person.

There is no evidence of the vehicle being left parked and, whilst the Defendant recalls that they did sometimes go indoors, it is too long ago to be sure which claimed events may have been parking, as opposed to setting down of the Claimant's disabled resident relatives.

The burden lies with the Claimant who has failed to establish the facts or cause of action and has even duplicated dates in their particulars.  Further, the Claimant has added the BPA's capped £70 for the purported letters/admin they call 'debt recovery' (which is disputed because a parking charge covers the letter chain to keepers) nineteen times, inflating their claim by almost £1400.  This smacks of abusive and unreasonable conduct, being clear double recovery.

I have copied and amended the paragraphs you have suggested - please let me know what you think, thanks!

________________________________________________________

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

2. The particulars state 'The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle' which indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on 19 a total of dates, however, 3 dates ‘10/03/2016, 19/03/2016 and 01/04/2016’ are duplicated.

3. The Defendant avers that they were, on most or all occasions, likely to have been merely assisting relatives to board or alight because they are blind and had major double organ transplant surgery affecting their physical and mental health.  This means they met the definition of disability and they and their carers (both protected by the Equality Act 2010) were entitled to the reasonable adjustment of setting down a disabled person including assisted boarding/alighting to/from the flat.  As their carer, transporting them around, it is eminently reasonable for the Defendant to expect time to pick up or set down a disabled person, just as a taxi driver would, without penalty.

3. It is the Defendant's position that this amounts to serial predatory ticketing of residents and their visitors/carers.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of each parking event in terms of allowing a fair consideration period and should provide a witness statement from that person.

3. There is no evidence of the vehicle being left parked and, whilst the Defendant recalls that they did go indoors, it is too long ago to be sure which claimed events may have been parking, as opposed to setting down of the Claimant's disabled relative.

3. The burden lies with the Claimant who has failed to establish the facts or cause of action and has even duplicated dates in their particulars.  Further, the Claimant has added the BPA's capped £70 for the purported letters/admin they call 'debt recovery' (which is disputed because a parking charge covers the letter chain to keepers) nineteen times, inflating their claim by almost £1400.  This smacks of abusive and unreasonable conduct, being clear double recovery.

3. Within the appeal case of Jopson vs Homeguard - (case no. 9GF0A9E Judge HARRIS) Para 19 - it states the definition of whether a car is parked or loading/unloading which applies to the defendants case. 

 

‘Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree.’

‘I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried it in her desk, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice.’

Coupon-mad

Looks good.

Albie234

Coupon-mad said:

Looks good.

Great!!!

Thanks, I'll add this to the template -

1) should I keep the rest of it the exact same?
2) should I change any of the numbers?

Ill do this tomorrow morning first thing.

Coupon-mad

You do need each paragraph numbered. This one says number 3 several times!

1505grandad

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

Perhaps add "and driver" after keeper as presumably you are also denying liability as the driver.

Albie234

Coupon-mad said:

You do need each paragraph numbered. This one says number 3 several times!

so just chronologically number the paragraphs once they are in the template and change the ones on the template too?

Albie234

1505grandad said:

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

Perhaps add "and driver" after keeper as presumably you are also denying liability as the driver.

oooh yes thanks!

1505grandad

"3. Within the appeal case of Jopson vs Homeguard - (case no. 9GF0A9E Judge HARRIS) Para 19 - it states the definition of whether a car is parked or loading/unloading which applies to the defendants case. 

 

‘Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree.’

‘I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, .............."

You state para 19 as being quoted from, but they are from para 21  -  per Parking Prankster case law:-

http://nebula.wsimg.com/f6d657adf7df70d27e1dd285688b5701?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

"21 Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped,..............."