MB PCN, Claim Form Received, Defence in progress

D_P_Dance

Complain to your MP about all of that

raptor182

Hey folks. I'm finalising a defence which is to be submitted by Monday. 

Quick question about the first statement in the draft defence @Coupon-mad created. 

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or to form contracts in their own name at the location. 

This Claimant is Minster Baywatch but the carpark is managed by Bransby Wilson. 

Is the wording correct or does it need to be edited?

Coupon-mad

It's very appropriate for the MB situation, I'd say.  MB have no standing to sue because there is a disclosed principal and MB are just 3rd party contractors.

raptor182

I have copied this from another thread to ask if this is something I can put in my defence too? 

The point they make about ANPR cameras having planning permission was not relevant in their case but I've just had a look on my councils website and MB or WS haven't applied for anything. 


3. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full
compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

 
As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an
unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.
The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine
customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge
cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site -
is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.
It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and
issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make
contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their
own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner
only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic
documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement
might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently
evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace
periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and
basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement
applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has
authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and
when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job
title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal
agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict
proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must
ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to
legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be
clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any
restrictions on hours of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to
parking control and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
4. No Planning Permission from Worcester City Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras
and no Advertising Consent for signage.
As I have not been able to find any trace of planning permission for ANPR Cameras or
advertising consent I put the operator to strict proof of both permissions.
[ Unsure if this last point has any merit ?? ]
I therefore ask that this appeal is allowed.
Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict
proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must
ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to
legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be
clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any
restrictions on hours of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to
parking control and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Coupon-mad

That is not needed.  That's from a POPLA appeal and is very long.  But you don't need even a shortened version because (read the template defence!) the landowner point is already covered.

raptor182

How can I upload a PDF of a draft defence so you folks can look at it and destroy it  

Coupon-mad

We don't need to see a PDF.   I'm not sure you are seeing how short and sweet your bit to add to the template defence is.

Read a few other defence threads to see what other people do as their concise facts section.

We only ever need to check the few paragraphs #2 and #3 (maybe also extra numbers 4 and 5 if you have lots of facts and legal points) that you are editing and adding to the template defence.

We don't need to see the template defence that I re-wrote in March (don't change that).  You are using it but don't show us that.  We know what it says!

raptor182

Thanks for the insight. It would turn out I've been prepping more of a WS. At least I've done some of the leg work on that.

raptor182

Could someone take a look at the points below and tell me if anything needs expanding on or any added information would be greatly appreciated.  

On a different note. This needs to be submitted on Monday. According the NEWBIES page, a copy needs to be sent to GS. In what time does this need to be complete? Thank you.

1. On the nights of xxxx2021 and xxxx2021. The defendant had business at a venue close to the car park and required the unloading and loading of the vehicle.  
2. The defendant denies incurring a second charge on the xxxx2021 as stated on the POC. As such the defendant denies the claimant is entitled to claim three PCN’s, if at all.   
3. The car park is managed by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions (Agent) shown on the signage at the site. At no point has the defendant had any contact from or with BW Parking Solutions.  The defendant believes Minster Baywatch (Stranger) has no right to create or enforce a contract.  
4. The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Schedule 2 of the CRA.  Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was agreed by the driver.  
5. Vehicle Images contained in PCN do not comply with BPA Code of Practice 

Coupon-mad

I take it these will be your point 3, 4 and 5 to add to the template defence?

Bransby Wilson (disclosed principal).

Minster Baywatch (agent with no standing).