4 Year Old PCN with bonus PCN

Jenni_D

I saw that ... is past experience with DJ Iyer good or bad? (I can't remember).

snores

Coupon-mad said:

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.

Thanks for your points CM.
I can only admit the car was parked there because of the PCN they issued showing the license plate of the vehicle. I have no idea if it stayed there for the 1hr44mins straight through like they are claiming or if it left and came back - could very well be either.
No they've not shown me any evidence of all the exempted vehicles from that day - in fact this new POC is the first they've said anything about vehicle validation. I thought that them insisting I show the evidence of validation was correct, but presumably the burden of proof is on them to show I didn't validate?
Yes the claimant sent the NTH later than they were allowed to, based off of POFA deadlines and also didn't include hire docs - should I merge these 2 points together rather than separate ones?
Thanks for catching that, I'll go over the points from 10 onwards to make sure they fit my case

snores

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. 

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. 

Hi thank you so much for your input. I appreciate you clarifying that the defence being struck out isn't a bad thing, I've really been anxious I've already angered the judge.

I only know about how the gym validates their parking based off a couple of other threads on here that I've read where people have been patrons of the gym and the gym parking validation errored and they received PCNs. I've never been a member of this particular gym however my partner and brother who were both insured to drive the vehicle in question, may have been (I can't say with certainty because with some gyms you can pick a multi-site option and they can't remember if they attended the gym at this location or not). There's also an Aldi at this location which my partner and I have shopped at multiple times and also a Go Outdoors which again we've both visited. Overall, I really cannot state with any certainty what might have been the cause for the overstay, it would all be speculation.

Thank you for showing me how to respond to the particulars - I'll edit it again today using your advice. I think I'll save the specific details that I've included, for my witness statement

snores

Umkomaas said:

Did anyone spot which Judge the case is to be referred to after the orders have been complied with? DJ Iyer. 

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. 

Thanks for the reassurance - I interpreted it in the opposite way actually, in that the judge may not be familiar hence asking for a condensed defence. This gives me some hope at least that if he's familiar with parking scams then he knows their tactics

Umkomaas

Jenni_D said:

I saw that ... is past experience with DJ Iyer good or bad? (I can't remember).

All the cases I've read where he has been involved have favoured the motorist. If you read between the lines of what he is demanding of the PPC in revising their POCs, you can tell he knows his onions. 

snores

Okay so working off johnersh's advice, this is what I have so far. It's less than a page but I think I've addressed all the points in the POC. I can elaborate each point further in my witness statement.

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 among other things, 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 Defendant 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 and 7 of the Particulars of Claim.

6. Paragraph 7 is not admitted. The Claimant is put to proof that the vehicle was parked on the land concurrently for the time alleged, and that the Defendant’s vehicle was not exempted in-store.

7. Paragraph 8 is not admitted nor denied insofar as the Defendant has no recollection of the driver of the vehicle from 5 years ago. The Claimant is pursuing the Defendant as liable under ‘Keeper liability’ however, as the Claimant has not complied with Protection Of Freedoms Act (POFA), Schedule 4, the Claimant cannot rely on the provisions of the Act and hold the Defendant liable as hirer/keeper. The Claimant failed to provide a Notice to Hirer (NTH) within the timescales dictated in POFA, Schedule 4 and failed to provide hire documents with the NTH as dictated by POFA, Schedule 4

8. Paragraph 9 is denied, insofar as the Defendant had reasonable belief that these letters were for a vehicle that did not belong to her.

9. Paragraph 10 is denied. The Defendant received one Parking Charge Notice (PCN), absent hire documents, in January 2018 for a vehicle she did not recognise and subsequently received nothing else from the Claimant in relation to this PCN for three and a half years, until June 2021. The Claimant is put to proof that they did exhaust all opportunities to pursue this claim for the consistent duration of 5 years.

10. Paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 are denied. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought. The Defendant believes that the Claimant is artificially inflating the value of the Claim by adding costs which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures, in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.

KeithP

You need to adjust your paragraph 5.
You have blindly copied @Johnersh's guidance to you.

1505grandad

Is para 5 correct in view of para 7:-

Para 5  -  "..... do not state or require the Defendant to validate their parking,...."
Para 7 -  "Paragraph 8 is not admitted nor denied insofar as the Defendant has no recollection of the driver of the vehicle from 5 years ago"

snores

KeithP said:

You need to adjust your paragraph 5.
You have blindly copied @Johnersh's guidance to you.

Hi, I left this in because isn't it saying that the PPC didn't say anything about needing to validate parking in their original POC and also on their signs in the carpark? But are now insisting this is the reason for breach in the amended POC? Or can I not refer to the original POC or any carpark signs since it's been 5 years and I don't know what they said back then 

snores

1505grandad said:

Is para 5 correct in view of para 7:-

Para 5  -  "..... do not state or require the Defendant to validate their parking,...."
Para 7 -  "Paragraph 8 is not admitted nor denied insofar as the Defendant has no recollection of the driver of the vehicle from 5 years ago"

Hi, I'm trying to say that although I don't remember who the driver was, the original PCN and POC didn't say anything about un-validated parking being the reason for breach. They have only mentioned 'parking validation' as a reason in this amended POC because otherwise the vehicle was well within their time limits (according to the terms they've stated in the same paragraph 4). I'm a bit confused on whether or not I can reference anything about this being the first time they've mentioned failure to validate