Please email your PCN story to watchdog@bbc.co.uk they want to hear about it.
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
4 Year Old PCN with bonus PCN
Options
Comments
-
snores said:Mouse007 said:Go for 6
I would, and argue that the order arrived very late (postal strike). The Order disadvantages you on 2 counts.
BBC WatchDog “if you are struggling with an unfair parking charge do get in touch”
Please then tell us here that you have done so.1 -
Mouse007 said:
Also it says within 7 days of the order, and it's been like 14 days already. Yes postal strikes are the reason but do you think they would they consider that a valid reason?0 -
Isn't there a fee involved in setting aside that order?0
-
No, that costs a 3 figure application fee and there's no grounds to set the order aside (and it will put you in the bad books of this court). And clearly this court doesn't much like template defences.
Now you have the new POC (which I can't see on my phone because page 9 is not displayed as a clickable option and I'd have to go back page by page, to get there) you are not disadvantaged and can respond to the allegations.
Show us the new POC again please.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD1 -
Coupon-mad said:No, that costs a 3 figure application fee and there's no grounds to set the order aside (and it will put you in the bad books of this court). And clearly this court doesn't much like template defences.
Now you have the new POC (which I can't see on my phone because page 9 is not displayed as a clickable option and I'd have to go back page by page, to get there) you are not disadvantaged and can respond to the allegations.
Show us the new POC again please.
I feel like the wording in point 4 of the court order is quite scary - ".."identifying briefly whether each allegation in the POC is admitted or denied and the reasons for denying. If they don't comply then the defence will be struck out" - some of the points aren't really an admit/deny thing but I don't want to shoot myself in the foot by trying to elaborate on my points without admitting or denying
I'll repost the POC below0 -
This is the POC, I've just cropped out the last bit where they've put their statement of truth.
0 -
This is what I have so far, working off of johnersh's concise defence.
Given that this court doesn't like template defences, should I omit everything past point 10 and onwards?
[deleted as work in progress]
0 -
That is a good start but it will need some work.
Unless this amended POC also attached photos, or you've seen photo evidence earlier (as part of an appeal or SAR) I don't see how you can admit point 2 (that the vehicle was parked there 5 years ago) in the absence of any knowledge or evidence.
Or have you seen such evidence? Correct me if I am wrong. Have you seen evidence that tells you categorically that the car was actually parked for more than an hour (as opposed to driving in and out and maybe the actual parked time was one hour)?
How many minutes is this alleged overstay?
Have they appended evidence of the VRMs that were exempted in-store that day? If not then you have not seen any evidence of a breach, surely?
You say this (below) about a late NTH but there is more that has to accompany a NTH if it is to comply with the POFA and Highview never include the mandatory enclosures:
"The Claimant failed to do so, as the date on the NTH was 18/01/2018 – which was 22 days after."And:Highview are in the BPA, not in the IPC so you've copied a case that is about an IPC firm. The relevant CoP would be the one applying in 2017 on the BPA website of Codes of Practice.
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD1 -
OK. Hang fire. Don't take offence that the defence was struck out, the defence is invariably generic when the claimant sets out little or no information in the Particulars. Tbh, I'd like to see more judges this proactive.
If the overwhelming likelihood is that the o/p was the driver (because she was a gym user) I'd give thought to admitting that. It's a basis on which it can be contended that there was no loss of revenue to the business on site and what we simply have is a punitive charge. This is different to beavis, who overstayed the limit of his welcome.
The easiest way to prepare a defence in response to detailed particulars is literally to reply. For example:
1. the Defendant was the registered hirer and thus for the purpose of these proceedings, keeper of vehicle registration mark XXX. The vehicle was a courtesy car hired to the Defendant for the period of one day, whilst their vehicle underwent a service at a local dealership.
2. Paragraph 1 and 2 of the particulars of claim is admitted, save that the defendant has no knowledge of the basis on which the parking charge notice (PCN) was issued nor is the client base of the claimant company within her knowledge.
3. Paragraph 3 is not admitted. The claimant is put to proof that there was such a contract and inter alia that it was entitled to provide parking services, the terms of that service, whether parking charge notices could be issued and to litigate in relation to those.
4. Paragraph 4 is neither admitted nor denied insofar as the defendant has no recollection of the signs from 5 years ago. The claimant is put to proof with contemporaneous photographs, contracts or otherwise.
5. It is averred that the terms of the said contract as stated within the Particulars of claim do not state or require the claimant to validate their parking, use the term 'validate' or otherwise specify what is required, which is stated as the alleged breach of contract at paragraph 2 of the Particulars of Claim.
Etc. Etc.3 -
snores said:Coupon-mad said:No, you are allowed to say you are 'unable to admit or deny' some allegations due to the Claimant failing to provide sufficient evidence of any breach , nor who was driving, nor a copy of the contract (sign) that they say was in situ 5 years ago.
Can you show us the new POC please?Johnersh said:OK. Hang fire. Don't take offence that the defence was struck out, the defence is invariably generic when the claimant sets out little or no information in the Particulars. Tbh, I'd like to see more judges this proactive.DJ Iyer is well on top of the private parking scam and has probably seen the forum template defence many times previously and likely knows well the detailed points it makes. So I wouldn't read it negatively that he is asking for a cropped down, 4-pager, now.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street2
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards