Claim Form Defence - Incorrect payment amount/Zero communication received

cmyk87

Hi all, I've read the newbies section and have sent SAR and filed AOS. I now understand that my case is that the parking company want £264 because I am at fault for paying the incorrect amount for parking overnight by £2.

Background

A change of home address shortly after the parking event is the reason I believe I received zero communication from the parking management company or debt collectors until I received the County Court Claim Form via a Royal Mail redirect which meant I have had no chance to appeal, pay or otherwise.

The Claim Form states the company want £170 for the PCN(s) which I never received, plus interest, a court fee and legal costs totalling £264.92. It is stated on the Claim Form that I agreed to pay the PCN within 28-days and did not. Again I have received zero communication up to this point. 

The car park for many years had been free between the hours of 9pm and 9am and I believed this to still be the case on the night I parked my car there. I now understand that the car park had changed its policy and was running on a 24-hour payment basis. At the time, I paid £2.50 to cover my parking until 9pm and on the morning I paid a an additional £1.50 to cover the car from 9am until I left the car park. I made all of my payments via the app and still have the receipts. The cost for 24-hour parking is only £6 therefore the total of my two bookings were short by just £2.

I feel as though I am being severely punished for a legitimate mistake but unsure if I can fight it? Any advice on drafting an appropriate defence would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

cmyk87

Hi Keith,

Claim Form Issue date is 04/04/2022
AOS is today, sent this morning

Thank you

KeithP

cmyk87 said:

Claim Form Issue date is 04/04/2022
AOS is today, sent this morning

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th April, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 7th April, you have until 4pm on Thursday 5th May 2022 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

cmyk87

Thank you for the advice Keith!

I've spent hours today looking at the newbies thread and at the second post in particular - it has been incredibly helpful! So far, I haven't been able to find any cases similar to mine in the forum. I'm not sure where to go with it to be honest.

Many thanks,

1505grandad

Who is the claimant?

Coupon-mad

You don't need a similar case.  You are only writing one paragraph, maybe two, to add to the template defence (unless it's ParkingEye).

cmyk87

1505grandad said:

Who is the claimant?

It's Northwest Parking Management LTD, Legal team is DCB Legal LTD.

Umkomaas

cmyk87 said:

1505grandad said:

Who is the claimant?

It's Northwest Parking Management LTD, Legal team is DCB Legal LTD.

Don't recognise them as serial litigants. Just be aware that almost every PPC is now using the low-rent solicitor ensemble to issue court proceedings in the hope that they will exert enough pressure to cause the motorist to cave early and pay up. It can be a successful ploy - unless the motorist fights back, which you seem to be doing. 

But you have to go through all the phases in order to take your chance on the PPC discontinuing, many of the litigation-inexperienced PPCs seem to do that. You are now playing the long game. 

cmyk87

Coupon-mad said:

You don't need a similar case.  You are only writing one paragraph, maybe two, to add to the template defence (unless it's ParkingEye).

Thank you, I have drafted my first defence based on the template. Please let me know what you think if you have time to read it. Many Thanks

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

2.1 The Defendant has received no letters, emails or other form of communication from the Claimant prior to receiving the County Court Claim Form.

2.2. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice (‘PCN')'. for the lawful conduct described below.

2.3 The Defendant has retained receipts for payment of parking on the 28/06/2021 and 29/06/2021.

3. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at Hartlepool Marina car park overnight on 28/06/21. The allegation appears to be that the 'motorist fails to make the appropriate tariff payment’ based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time' or of the driver not being a patron of the Hartlepool Marina Car Park.

3.1. For many years the car park had been free to park overnight between the hours of 9pm and 9am. Due to the lack of obvious signage at the entrance to the car park to state otherwise, the Defendant believed this to still be the case on the night the vehicle was parked. 

3.2. On the 28/06/2021 the Defendant paid £2.50 to cover parking the vehicle until 9pm. On the 29/06/2021 the Defendant paid an additional £1.50 to cover the vehicle from 9am until the Defendant left the car park.

3.3  The parking app which the Defendant used to pay for parking does not state that parking is charged on a 24-hour basis. It states ‘The spaces are available 24 hours on all days’. The Defendant has parked overnight at this location for free on many occasions. Nothing on the app alerted the Defendant to the fact that his tariff would not be sufficient or that the Claimant's parking policy had changed. 

3.4 At the time of the incident, no signage was displayed at the entrance to the car park to state that 24-hour parking charges were in effect. There is only one entrance and exit to the car park. Upon further investigation, There are still no clear signs at the entrance to the car park that states that 24-hour parking charges are in effect.

3.5 The Defendant now understands that the car park had changed its policy and is now running on a 24-hour payment basis. The current cost for 24-hour parking is £6. Therefore on the night in question, the total of the Defendants two bookings were short by just £2, possibly less.

Coupon-mad

I think I'd replace 3.3 entirely.  Don't talk about the app because it mentions 24 hours (I think that helps their case, not yours).

Instead, quote the relevant IPC or BPA (depends which APA they are in) Code of Practice. You want to say they are in breach of section xx (look it up & quote it) of the trade body Code of Practice about material changes/new regulations, which requires additional signage, to alert drivers familiar with the old rules.  That has to be prominent and remain in place for a sufficient period after the changes, and the new Government statutory Code of Practice has quantified an expectation that a reasonable period would be at least 4 months.