PCM - Gladstone - CCJ - Need Help??

toffeelad123

Also - want to check if I am using the correct template?

Starts:

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.

Points - 2 & 3 to amend by myself

Points 4 to 25 - keep as is

Ends:

26. The claim is entirely without merit and the Claimant is urged to discontinue now, to avoid incurring costs and wasting the court's time and that of the Defendant. 

And then statement of truth?

Is this correct?

KeithP

toffeelad123 said:

Also - want to check if I am using the correct template?

On 16 May at 6:00PM - just three days ago - you asked:

toffeelad123 said:

quick questions - in the response above from KeithP - it mentions

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

The second post contains a draft dated 20th Feb? - it does say edited on 9th March at 2.57am.

Just wanted to check if this is the most up to date version? - As the thread has 17 pages.

My reply then was:

toffeelad123

Thank you - ok

toffeelad123

This is the Parking Charge:

Are they allowed to charge for "the period of parking to which this charge relates is that which is immediately precedes the time of issue"

The pics sent through on the SAR I have looked through again - & they issued the ticket and took all the photos within 1 min? - 

Don't they have to give a grace period?

toffeelad123

Also - I'm not sure which route to go down? - as in; 

I was the not the driver - so sod off?
or the 
the permit fell off the dashboard and we have a valid permit

toffeelad123

I mean I could go down the I'm not the driver for my defence statement & can get a signed witness statement from the missus - 

Question: - If after a witness statement is submitted (further down the line) & the case goes to court & the PPC can't identify the driver (me); but now have a witness statement (missus) saying she was driving; would they then pursue her?

Coupon-mad

You say all of it in paras 2 and 3 - plus the point about no grace period.

Question: - If after a witness statement is submitted (further down the line) & the case goes to court & the PPC can't identify the driver (me); but now have a witness statement (missus) saying she was driving; would they then pursue her?

Possibly, which is why our advice never says you should name the driver in a court defence.  You are not obliged to under the POFA and can't be assumed to have been driving, either.  It is good enough that your signed statements (under a statement of truth) declare the truth, that you were not the driver.

toffeelad123

Ok; here is my first attempt - I was looking through other posts and liked the look of this one I found.  I've amended to my circumstance - please let know what you think? - thanks 
@Coupon-mad@KeithP@Umkomaas@Le_Kirk @go-on-then

 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 long-term lease hirer of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.

3.    The defendant was not the driver of vehicle xxxx on XXXX when the PCN was issued.

4.    As the long-term lease hirer, the Defendant accept that where the provisions of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) schedule 4 are met, and only within those limitations, liability for a parking charge notice (PCN) may pass to the registered keeper or long term hirer.

5.     The particulars of claim refer to what is understood to be an alleged parking contract, but do not set out with adequate specificity what parking terms, if any, were breached.

6.    The claimant in pre-action correspondence has failed to provide, when reasonably requested, further details of the parking contract.

7.     The defendant reserves the right to amend the defence once details of the contract are provided.

8.     The defendant did not receive a fine or any communication from PCM at the material time.

9.    The first letter received by the Defendant about the alleged breach of contract was the N1SDT claim form received in May 2022 from PCM, almost seven months later. 

10.  Insofar as it is within the knowledge of the defendant, the vehicle was present in XXXXXX on XXXXXX date.

11.  The Defendant was not driving on the material date because the Defendant was driving a different vehicle. The Defendant has proof of not being in the location by way of work records for the date in question. The Defendant did not accept any contractual terms with the Claimant nor did the Defendant agree to pay as the Defendant was not the driver.  Only the driver could enter into any binding parking contract.  The Claimant has not provided any evidence the Defendant was the driver.

12.  It is neither admitted nor denied that parking terms applied to XXXXXXX customers on that date. The claimant is put to strict proof. 

13. It is neither admitted nor denied that there were parking notices sufficient in number or visible, so as to bring to the attention of car park users any terms of parking that the claimant may rely upon. The claimant is put to strict proof.

14. The copy of the PCN provided by PCM states the notice of issue time as XX:XX:XX and the photographic evidence provided by PCM shows a ticket on the windscreen at XX:XX:XX.  This would suggest that a 50 second grace period was afforded during the alleged breach.  The claimant is asked to demonstrate reasonableness in this matter and is questioned why such a short amount of ‘grace’ period was provided.

15.  It is denied that the defendant is responsible for the sums claimed or at all.

16. The claimant claims interest on a sum that was not notified to the defendant and which is a result of their own delay in seeking payment. To the extent that there has been any delay it lies with the claimant and interest should be disallowed. 

17.  The claimant claims a sum in excess of the maximum permitted under the relevant approved operator schemes and without justification or further explanation as to how such additional sums arise, are incurred or are calculated and seeks to claim additional interest thereon. It is denied that such sums are recoverable.

 

 Feedback would be appreciated - thanks

 

Coupon-mad

Add to 4, or make this 5:

It is denied that the Claimant met the strict requirements within POFA 2012, including but not limited to, service of the mandatory documents to the Defendant as set out in Schedule 4 paragraphs 13 and 14.  It is further denied - due to no evidence having been produced - that any contractual breach by the driver occurred, or that any 'relevant contract' 'relevant obligation' or indeed 'adequate notice of the parking charge' existed. In short, the pre-requisites of the POFA provisions for liability are not established and the Defendant cannot be held liable.

toffeelad123

Ok - yes, that is much better - I will make it 5 - thanks