4 Year Old PCN with bonus PCN

snores

Jenni_D said:

i. is allowed
ii. is a made up number and is a cost (to them) that has not been incurred. (Signage back then almost certainly did not allude to liability for any additional contractual costs).
iii. needs to be challenged - it was their decision to delay pursuing this through court so they shouldn't be allowed to accrue interest from the date of the PCN.
iv. is allowed
v. is allowed

Thank you for clarifying Jenni, I have worked some of that into Point 12
Also I would like to say thank you for mentioning in a post elsewhere, how to search for google street views from the past. I am currently working on my WS for the other claim (own car) and was trying to include screenshots of what the signage looked like back then

Johnersh

I've revisited this.

For clarification, the particulars in the table refer to a failure to validate. 

The particulars refer to parking in excess of 1hr.  Is that substantially more? Clearly it may take 5 or 10 mins to find a bay and park or to leave. That would have the driver within a period of free parking with no need to validate. 

Also note that the terms require the shopkeeper to supply the driver will be with a coupon. Therefore C has to prove the shops were provided with an adequate number of coupons and that the driver was in fact issued with a coupon. If the driver was, for whatever reason not provided with a coupon, the term of the contract becomes impossible to perform. 

Coupon-mad

It's an important point and I did ask this OP yesterday how many minutes over the 1 hour the ANPR images captured the car for.

Can't see an answer yet but it seemed to me that a consideration period (driving in on entry) and a minimum ten minute grace period - after expiry of the allowed hour's parking - could cover the allegation anyway?

I'll omit that extra bit then, thank you for clarifying

No. Include your extra bit about the POFA maximum.  The POFA 2012 is primary law.

snores

Johnersh said:

I've revisited this.

For clarification, the particulars in the table refer to a failure to validate. 

The particulars refer to parking in excess of 1hr.  Is that substantially more? Clearly it may take 5 or 10 mins to find a bay and park or to leave. That would have the driver within a period of free parking with no need to validate. 

Also note that the terms require the shopkeeper to supply the driver will be with a coupon. Therefore C has to prove the shops were provided with an adequate number of coupons and that the driver was in fact issued with a coupon. If the driver was, for whatever reason not provided with a coupon, the term of the contract becomes impossible to perform. 

Hi thank you so much. I fully forgot to answer @Coupon-mad and provide you with specifics. The PCN states a total stay duration of 1 hour and 44 minutes. So with it being 44 minutes more than the 1 hour free parking, I don't think I can argue grace periods. However you make an excellent point in regards to C proving that an adequate number of coupons were allocated to the shops that day etc. I will work this point into my defence

snores

Coupon-mad said:

It's an important point and I did ask this OP yesterday how many minutes over the 1 hour the ANPR images captured the car for.

Can't see an answer yet but it seemed to me that a consideration period (driving in on entry) and a minimum ten minute grace period - after expiry of the allowed hour's parking - could cover the allegation anyway?

I'll omit that extra bit then, thank you for clarifying

No. Include your extra bit about the POFA maximum.  The POFA 2012 is primary law.

Hi CM apologies I forgot to provide you with an answer. The PCN states it was a duration of 1 hour and 44 minutes. As I replied to Johnersh above, I dont think I can therefore argue grace periods. However I'll use the inadequate coupon allocation angle.

Okay thank you for letting me know, I'll include the POFA extra bit after all. 

I'll amend the defence tomorrow and post it here for critique hopefully if you all have time, as I'm looking to submit it by Monday.

snores

By the way, I received a letter yesterday from DCB saying "Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle this case.." etc etc, in regards to the other claim I have with my own car (where the POC and defence were accepted and a court date given).
According to @Umkomaas 's brilliant thread on DCB, I need to (a) ignore letter, (b) submit my WS (next Thursday deadline) and then hopefully DCB should file for a discontinuance before the 22nd (their fee filing deadline). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong?

KeithP

snores said:

By the way, I received a letter yesterday from DCB saying "Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle this case.." etc etc, in regards to the other claim I have with my own car (where the POC and defence were accepted and a court date given).
According to @Umkomaas 's brilliant thread on DCB, I need to (a) ignore letter, (b) submit my WS (next Thursday deadline) and then hopefully DCB should file for a discontinuance before the 22nd (their fee filing deadline). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong?

You are not wrong.

snores

Sorry one other question for my WS - for the own car claim, I've argued in my Defence that I can't recall who the driver was and have argued POFA wording in my Defence. I haven't argued anything about signage so presumably I can't now mention that in my WS?

Coupon-mad

You have, if you used the template defence...

snores

Coupon-mad said:

You have, if you used the template defence...

I did! paragraph 19? "..which were not quantified in prominent text on signage.." If that's sufficient then I'll re-insert my bits about signage then thank you!