My court defence v Captial car park control

ldnpt

I've submitted the AOS 
Submitted a SARS (no reply for two weeks now)
Below is my defence that needs to be submitted around the end of the month, many thanks for any help.
Also there was a third PCN around the time, same reasons but they haven't pursued that one.

DEFENCE

 

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver gave rise to a ‘parking charge’ and 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.

 

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. 

 

3. On the (date here) the claimant claims that I overstayed the 20 minutes loading/unloading time. 

I parked my car, as I had been doing for the past few months, at Greenwich Millenium Village and went to collect my permit from the concierge. When reaching the office I was surprised to find that the system had now been changed from a physical permit issued to a system where the receptionist inputs your details for you, I was surprised because there was no change in the previous signage or any notices anywhere to indicate that this was the case. Due to COVID restrictions the reception had a full closed safety screen on the desk and the information is input into a normal computer without a screen that can swivel to face the customer or a dedicated screen that is already facing the customer, which makes it very hard to check what you have requested has actually been input into the system. I know that I asked for the permit to run until 7:45pm as the football session that I coach on that particular day and had been for a few  months, had always finished at 7:30pm and 7:45pm allowed me enough time to load the equipment back in my car and leave. Despite my request I have been provided with no record of the day showing what time my car was registered in the system for.

As well as the above according to the terms and conditions of the signage on site (image attached) there is no maximum stay time once a motorist is registered to park, the sign states “WARNING: PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY: VEHICLES EXCEEDING 20 MINUTES FOR LOADING/UNLOADING MUST BE PRE REGISTERED AS HAVING A VALID PARKING PERMIT BEFORE PARKING” Based off this if a motorist is registered for a permit there is no evidence to show that they are only to remain at a set length of time on site. If there is a condition of telling the concierge how long you will be on site and then the permit being valid for this time, as is not stated on the signage, then this does not form part of the contract a motorist enters into.  

On the (date here) the claimant claims that either I overstayed the allocated time or that I was not registered to park at all, it’s not clear from the PCN issued or their appeals process which is the case making a fair defence at that stage difficult and confusing.

In their appeal rejection letter (attached) they state at the beginning “However, the parking requirements displayed at the property stipulate that a particular time period is allowed, and our records show that the time period was exceeded on this occasion” If this is the case according to the terms and conditions of the signage on site (image attached) there is no maximum stay time once a motorist is registered to park, the sign states “WARNING: PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY: VEHICLES EXCEEDING 20 MINUTES FOR LOADING/UNLOADING MUST BE PRE REGISTERED AS HAVING A VALID PARKING PERMIT BEFORE PARKING” Based off this if a motorist is registered for a permit there is no evidence to show that they are only to remain at a set length of time on site. If there is a condition of telling the concierge how long you will be on site and then the permit being valid for this time, as is not stated on the signage, then this does not form part of the contract a motorist enters into.

Further down the appeal rejection letter  they then state “However, if you were authorised to park at the location, your vehicle registration number would have been added to our system which would have showed us you were authorised to park there at the time. Our records show that your vehicle was not authorised to park, it has not been added to the exemption list in question” Again despite requesting it I have not been shown a copy of these records.

I parked my car, as I had been doing for the past few months as above, at Greenwich Millenium village and went to register my car with the concierge. As above due to COVID restrictions the reception had a full safety screen on the desk and the information is input into a normal computer without a screen that cannot swivel to face the customer or a dedicated screen that is already facing the customer, which makes it very hard to check what you have requested has actually been input into the system, also more often than not the concierge is somebody who’s first language is not english and I would double check that they have all my information correctly, they would usually confirm by stating the make model and colour of my car. Again as always for that particular day of the week I know that I asked for the permit to run to 6:45pm allowing me enough time to walk back to my car, load the equipment back in my car and leave. So I was shocked to receive two PCN’s within the same week that they switched over to the new system (I actually received a third which the claimant hasn’t pursued) I completely stopped parking at the location due to the feeling that the claimant’s system is unfit for purpose and being used to trap motorists unfairly. Other coaches I work with have received fines for the same reasons with most ongoing or some having appealed successfully.

The burden of proof lies with the claimant and when I have asked for a copy of the parking records for the 06/07/2021 they have failed to provide them by ignoring my request. I also requested an example or explanation of the training that was given to staff when changing to the new parking system and what was put in place to mitigate for mistakes which was again ignored.

I also sent a Subject Access Request over two weeks ago which has also been ignored.

Coupon-mad

A defence doesn't include 'I' did this/that.  Put it all in the third person 'the Defendant'.

All paras need a number.

This is not good English: "Based off this".

What's the issue date of the claim and on what date does the MCOL record say you acknowledged?

Umkomaas

You need to be checking the PPC name shown on the original NtK, the name of the PPC shown on the signage, the name of the claimant shown on the court claim form and (eventually) the name of the PPC shown on the landowner contract. 

Capital Car Park Control Ltd only came into formal existence on 24 August 2020. The owner is one Terence Szmidt, erstwhile sole trader/owner of Terry Szmidt T/A Capital Car Park Control (no 'Ltd', no longer trading), two totally different organisations.  He cannot mix the two operations to sue under one name for a parking charge incurred under the name of the other organisation. 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12832321

Do a forum search on 'Szmidt' and read previous threads to inform you of the nuances here, if the two organisations are jumbled together in his claim against you. 

Not_A_Hope

Your draft defence reads like a witness statement which you will produce later in the likely case the scammers pay to proceed to an actual court hearing. Evidence such as photos will be appended to your WS not the defence. 

You need to keep your couple of paragraphs short and punchy as well as in the third person (defendant, driver etc not I. You also need to make the court aware that the claimant should advance their whole case against you and include that third PCN). Otherwise they will come back and try to have another bite of the cherry at a later date so you will have to go through all this again.

Don't forget to add the rest of the template for the final version which needs to be sent via email not MCOL

Not_A_Hope

The PPC have 30 days in which to respond to your SAR request. Any info it may provide will be more useful for your witness statement so don't wait and be late in submitting your defence.

ldnpt

Coupon-mad said:

A defence doesn't include 'I' did this/that.  Put it all in the third person 'the Defendant'.

All paras need a number.

This is not good English: "Based off this".

What's the issue date of the claim and on what date does the MCOL record say you acknowledged?

Thanks i'll do that.

The issue date was 31/03 and the acknowledgement was 05/04.

ldnpt

Umkomaas said:

You need to be checking the PPC name shown on the original NtK, the name of the PPC shown on the signage, the name of the claimant shown on the court claim form and (eventually) the name of the PPC shown on the landowner contract. 

Capital Car Park Control Ltd only came into formal existence on 24 August 2020. The owner is one Terence Szmidt, erstwhile sole trader/owner of Terry Szmidt T/A Capital Car Park Control (no 'Ltd', no longer trading), two totally different organisations.  He cannot mix the two operations to sue under one name for a parking charge incurred under the name of the other organisation. 

Do a forum search on 'Szmidt' and read previous threads to inform you of the nuances here, if the two organisations are jumbled together in his claim against you. 

Thanks.

The claim for has Terry Szmidt T/A Capital Car Park Control, SVS House, Oliver Grove, London SE25 6EJ.

The original PCN's just Capital Car Park Control, SVS House, Oliver Grove, London SE25 6EJ, I only recieved one Notice To Driver, which also has this.

The signs had Capital Car Park Control Ltd, SVS House, Oliver Grove, London, SE25 6EJ.

ldnpt

Not_A_Hope said:

Your draft defence reads like a witness statement which you will produce later in the likely case the scammers pay to proceed to an actual court hearing. Evidence such as photos will be appended to your WS not the defence. 

You need to keep your couple of paragraphs short and punchy as well as in the third person (defendant, driver etc not I. You also need to make the court aware that the claimant should advance their whole case against you and include that third PCN). Otherwise they will come back and try to have another bite of the cherry at a later date so you will have to go through all this again.

Don't forget to add the rest of the template for the final version which needs to be sent via email not MCOL

Thank you for your feedback, i'll make those changes and repost.

Castle

Have you checked with DVLA to ascertain who asked for your details; looking at the BPA's AOS Members list, only the Ltd company is listed. 

Coupon-mad

ldnpt said:

Umkomaas said:

You need to be checking the PPC name shown on the original NtK, the name of the PPC shown on the signage, the name of the claimant shown on the court claim form and (eventually) the name of the PPC shown on the landowner contract. 

Capital Car Park Control Ltd only came into formal existence on 24 August 2020. The owner is one Terence Szmidt, erstwhile sole trader/owner of Terry Szmidt T/A Capital Car Park Control (no 'Ltd', no longer trading), two totally different organisations.  He cannot mix the two operations to sue under one name for a parking charge incurred under the name of the other organisation. 

Do a forum search on 'Szmidt' and read previous threads to inform you of the nuances here, if the two organisations are jumbled together in his claim against you. 

Thanks.

The claim for has Terry Szmidt T/A Capital Car Park Control, SVS House, Oliver Grove, London SE25 6EJ.

The original PCN's just Capital Car Park Control, SVS House, Oliver Grove, London SE25 6EJ, I only recieved one Notice To Driver, which also has this.

The signs had Capital Car Park Control Ltd, SVS House, Oliver Grove, London, SE25 6EJ.

If you are sure the signs were offering parking from the Ltd company then that must go into your defence.  It's the wrong party suing.  A stranger to the alleged contract (which is in any event, denied).

KeithP

ldnpt said:

Coupon-mad said:

A defence doesn't include 'I' did this/that.  Put it all in the third person 'the Defendant'.

All paras need a number.

This is not good English: "Based off this".

What's the issue date of the claim and on what date does the MCOL record say you acknowledged?

The issue date was 31/03 and the acknowledgement was 05/04.

With a Claim Issue Date of 31st March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 3rd May 2022 to file your Defence.

That's over a week 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'.