Paid for a space still got PCN? Do I pay again?

Ab93

Thanks for the fast reply! 

I am using the standard template defence,

The POC just states about breaching terms by parking at location (I’m currently at work and can’t remember if not displaying permit is mentioned) but I do remember ‘breach of terms…thus incurring’  with a second part about adding x%+ x pence daily. 

So all I should be leaving in is my rejection of this breach on grounds as a resident entitled to permits (including visitors) nothing about sequence of events paying for ticket etc? 

I have not seen HHJ Murch defences I think I have just found the transcript but I have many tabs open I apologise! 

Thanks again much appreciated! 

UncleThomasCobley

You have not shown us the PoC which makes it difficult to advise precisely. However, if the PoC fail to actually state the actual terms that you are alleged to have breached then you must edit your defence to include the following after para #1:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

1. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

2. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

Ab93

I tried to access via MCOL but I can’t get in what a surprise. I will post them here as soon as I get home 

Jenni_D

??? Why are you trying to access MCOL ???

Have you forgotten the previous advice, that once AoS is done then MCOL should be treated as Read Only. Were you seriously trying to file your defence via MCOL? 😱

Ab93

Jenni_D said:

??? Why are you trying to access MCOL ???

Have you forgotten the previous advice, that once AoS is done then MCOL should be treated as Read Only. Were you seriously trying to file your defence via MCOL? 😱

No sorry I was trying to quote the POC exactly sooner than later and thought they might be on there the letter is at home

Coupon-mad

They aren't on MCOL.  Which solicitor?

If it's DCBLegal you can certainly add the wording and the image of the CEL v Chan judgment.  Copy the defence style seen in the thread by @Rorythoperr which has all 4 images of the recent strike outs.

UncleThomasCobley

The PoC won't be on your MCOL anyway. When you get a chance, just show us the claim form with just your name, address, VRN, PCN number, claim number and MCOL password redacted. Leave everything else.

Ab93

It is DCBLegal, 

Here is the POC (sorry for the late reply couldn’t find the letter) 

The defendant(D) is indebted to the claimant(C) issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXXX on date XXXXXXXX

The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the Contract) thus incurring the PCN(s) 

The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding. The Contract entitles C to damages. 

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 
£170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages. 

Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of 0.03p until judgment or sooner payment. 

Costs and court fees. 

Obviously I did not agree to pay. Winds me up reading it back. Thank you for your patience.

KeithP

Ab93 said:

Obviously I did not agree to pay. Winds me up reading it back. Thank you for your patience.

The allegation is that by parking the driver agreed to the terms of the contract.

Those contract terms are the terms on the signs.

Almost certainly there is a term on the signs stating something like "if the driver doesn't park in accordance with the rules then he agrees to pay £nn within 28 days...".

Coupon-mad

And I've already advised which defence to copy and adapt. Easy peasy.

But don't focus on the non-point. The driver did (potentially) agree to pay by their conduct, under contract law as it relates to a car park.  We'd be rich if we had a quid for every time a poster thought that sentence in the POC was a thing to object to!