County Court Claim - UKPC / St Marys View

Coupon-mad

Yep cut it right down and keep the narrative for the WS.

In #2, add that you are a private hire driver.

Castle

Coupon-mad said:

Yep cut it right down and keep the narrative for the WS.

In #2, add that you are a private hire drover.

Somebody who moves animals over long distances!

Coupon-mad

Haha, fat fingers when using my phone!

estevenin

I have now reduced it. The big chunks are only the quotes from the BPA and the Jopson Vs. Homeguard case. Please let me know if I need to chunk those down as well or if it is safer to keep the entire paragraph for each quote.

----------

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

3. The vehicle was stopped in St Marys View, Watford, behind McDonalds (staff exit) where they have their own bins installed, in order to pick-up a food delivery (loading / unloading) from them in the context of business activities.

- Further research in the context of this appeal, shows no visible sign post or restriction. Rather, only small panels attached to some random locations, in dark and unlit walls, with very small letter – not readable from a vehicle in movement, with no precise instruction if those signs apply for the dedicated parking spaces further down the road or the whole area – and if the whole area, where does this area starts.

- As I have witnessed later, the parking attendant sometimes waits in his car for cars loading / unloading to stop (popular spot around restaurants), to apply a quick Parking Charge. That constitutes a lack of grace periods (which is a breach of the BPA CoP), as the car was not parked but only stopped in order to load/unload:  "13.1 The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes."

- The POC mentions a "parking" prohibition, and it is important to draw the distinction between "parking" and "loading/unloading", as this would not constitute a breach of contract.

In Jopson Vs. Homeguard, case no: B9GF0A9E, which had seen this appeal allowed, his honour Judge Harris QC mentions that loading/unloading is not parking:

"19. The purported prohibition was upon "parking", and it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward or heavy items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time"

and

"20. Neither party was able to direct the court to any authority on the meaning of the word “park”. However, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following: “To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space” and “To leave in a suitable place until required.” The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes. Discussion in this area left the respondent in obvious difficulties, from which the attractive advocacy of Miss Fenwick was unable to rescue it."

and 

"21. Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable, a consideration which those instructing Miss Fenwick seemed reluctant to accept. I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice."

Le_Kirk

If this is a defence, you have used too much narrative and have introduced evidence that comes later at witness statement stage.  You have used "I" when it should be "the defendant" and every paragraph requires a number.  What is the relevance of the bins behind McDonald's?  Is it a valid defence argument?  You have loading/unloading in two different paragraphs - keep it together.  Signage is mentioned in the standard defence template, just make sure you do not duplicate it with what you have written - keep it all in one place.

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

Yep cut it right down and keep the narrative for the WS.

In #2, add that you are a private hire driver.

You didn't add the above context of your job.

estevenin

Coupon-mad said:

Coupon-mad said:

Yep cut it right down and keep the narrative for the WS.

In #2, add that you are a private hire driver.

You didn't add the above context of your job.

"It is admitted that the Defendant, who is a private hire driver,". I did, shoud I add details about that job in particular ?

Le_Kirk said:

If this is a defence, you have used too much narrative and have introduced evidence that comes later at witness statement stage.  You have used "I" when it should be "the defendant" and every paragraph requires a number.  What is the relevance of the bins behind McDonald's?  Is it a valid defence argument?  You have loading/unloading in two different paragraphs - keep it together.  Signage is mentioned in the standard defence template, just make sure you do not duplicate it with what you have written - keep it all in one place.

- Removed the evidence that will come later
- Removed any mention of "I"
- Removed the mentions of the bins. It was to highlight that this leads to believe that the area belongs to McDonalds, given the fact that I'm providing a job for them. Will keep it for the witness statement
- I have joined the 2 paragraphs regarding loading/unloading, first mentionning that it is not a breach of contract and second that it is a breach of grace period.
- Removed any mention of signage, it is indeed mentions later on, pretty similar to what was written - with exeption about confusion about the zone, however this could go in the witness statement as well I suppose.
- I have seperated paragraph 3 (context) and given a new paragraph (4) regarding the loading/unloading, and increase the paragraph count of all the other ones from the template.
- It is as shrunked as it can be I believe, the big chucks are the quotes, which I can remove as well if it is meant to come out later in full.

Thank you very much again for the involvment.

======================================================
======================================================

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

3. The vehicle was stopped in St Marys View, Watford, behind McDonalds, in order to pick-up a food delivery (loading / unloading) from them in the context of business activities.

4. The Particulars Of Claim mention a "parking" prohibition and it is important to draw the distinction between "parking" and "loading/unloading", as this would not constitute a breach of contract. His honour Judge Harris QC mentions that loading/unloading is not parking, as shown in Jopson Vs. Homeguard, case no: B9GF0A9E, which had seen this appeal allowed:

"19. The purported prohibition was upon "parking", and it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward or heavy items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time"

and

"20. Neither party was able to direct the court to any authority on the meaning of the word “park”. However, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following: “To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space” and “To leave in a suitable place until required.” The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes. Discussion in this area left the respondent in obvious difficulties, from which the attractive advocacy of Miss Fenwick was unable to rescue it."

and 

"21. Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable, a consideration which those instructing Miss Fenwick seemed reluctant to accept. I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice."

Applying a charge immediately after a car has stopped and not yet parked also constitutes a lack of grace periods (which is a breach of the BPA CoP): 

"13.1 The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes."

========================
========================

Coupon-mad

I think that is all good. Make a note for yourself that Jopson and the relevant part of the Code of Practice on grace periods, will need to be exhibits at WS and evidence stage.

estevenin

Alright thank you very much. Sent it, received an Auto-Response reply, I will check MCOL and chase them to make sure it is logged. I will update this post when I receive a feedback with the N180. Thank you all very much for the guidance.

Edit :

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 19/05/2022 at 14:11:58
Your acknowledgment of service was received on 19/05/2022 at 16:05:05
Your defence was received on 10/06/2022

Seems all good with the defence, will wait for N180 now.

EDIT 02/08/2022 : The N180 Has been filled up according to bargepole's post, sent as a letter to the court and QDR Solicitors, also sent by email to QDR Solicitors. Will monitor for it to be logged to MCOL.

EDIT 18/08/2022 : The N180 seems to have been received and logged : "You filed a DQ on 16/08/2022" on MCOL. I also have email and receipt of the post office, that it has been received by them and by QDR Solicitors.

I am now then waiting for the Notice of Allocation, and as soon as I have it, will post my Witness Statement ? Skeleton Argument here.

estevenin

Hi All,

Just updating this case with the lasts documents received :

- N180 from QDR, dated 25th of August : https://www.dropbox.com/s/7itupqozg67qdmu/2.pdf?dl=0
- General Form Of Judgment or Order, dated 1st of September



At first, I got a little bit anxious reading "You have failed to file the Directions Questionnaire with the CCBC by the date specified in the notice", but after that I understood that this letter has been sent to both QDR and myself and that this is addressed to them and not me, as the sentence starts with  "The Claimant, you have been sent...".

They asked me to send it by the 15th of August. I have sent it on the 2nd, and it has been received and signed for on the 9th, with proof of delivery and signature. I also backed it with an email version, with proof and automated reply from them, on the 10th. I also chased them on the 15th by phone since it wasn't logged, they asked me not to worry that they have a big backlog and it takes them 10 days to two weeks to log them.

QDR sent their DQ on the 25th, I supposed they had the same date as me, so this would make it late I suppose. Therefore my guess is that this "General Form Of Judgment or Order" was sent automatically, as they hadn't logged the one from QDR yet (It is now logged on my MCOL as such : DQ filed by claimant on 07/09/2022).

And since they logged it, now this has been transferred to my chosen city and I will hear from them soon.

Or at least that's what I'm guessing, just want to make sure there is nothing wrong here where I should act quickly, since I have that line "General sanctions order was made on 01/09/2022" on my MCOL now and it had me a bit worried as it makes it look like sanctions order was applied to my account.

Other question : I will be away mid september for 2 weeks, so it is very likely that I receive a letter from the court, in that period, with a proposed date and asking to send a witness statement (I did specify on the N180 that I was away), so there is a big probability that I miss out on crucial information. Assuming that no one can pick up my mail, and that my court won't update MCOL, is there a procedure to follow up on that properly, for those kind of cases ?

Thanks again, will update this post once again as soon as I hear from the Court in my city.