Getting change of address sorted for PCNs

Coupon-mad

No you can't.  So when you send your updated submission in reply to their improved POC, include a fresh N180 DQ crossing out entire weeks (if in doubt, cross it out plus a couple of days either side of travel).

Sounds like the Judge was almost too nice!

Mikeh2001

Thank you for sharing your experiences.  I wish you better luck second time around!

I cannot wrap my head around the point of procedural rules (and the claimants blant disregard for them) if there are no implications for doing so. It's hardly "enforcement" if the already wasted time and resources turns into "don't worry Claimant, we will ignore it and give you another chance". (Rant over..).

I took at quick look at your WS and one point that stood out to was "sign is not particularly prominent"...this feels like an admission it's partially prominent! I think you should clearly start lack of prominence and how this means it's impossible a contract was formed as per CRA etc.

Also you mention breach's of BPA a couple of times but I think you could spell out the implications of this. As I understand it claiming accreditation and then not complying by the rules of such accreditation means the claimant again falls foul of customer protection legislation and also means they are not meeting the conditions of the contract they have to access data from the DVLA.

Hope it helps!

Mikeh2001

I found that part 2 of the Customer Protection from Unfair Regulations 2008 Says that a commercial practice is misleading if:

"(b)it concerns any failure by a trader to comply with a commitment contained in a code of conduct which the trader has undertaken to comply with, if—

(i)the trader indicates in a commercial practice that he is bound by that code of conduct, and

(ii)the commitment is firm and capable of being verified and is not aspirational,"

Debszzzz2

Lought_TA said:

I asked why he wasn't striking the claim out there and then and he said that he wasn't for two reasons; 1) the current issues with paperwork and PoCs can be resolved and so he has given time for all parties to get that resolved and 2) if he struck out the claim, it is likely the Claimant would resubmit a new claim with updated PoCs anyway and he felt that isn't a great use of court's time and resources.

Sounds like you had a "nice but dim" judge. If he had simply struck the claim out without leave to amend, does that not mean that the claimant cannot simply refile the same claim? Yes, the claimant could appeal but how likely is that when it is already obvious you are dealing with intellectually malnourished legals?

Lought_TA

Thank you all for the comments! @Coupon-mad @Mikeh2001 @Debszzzz2

So I've had the court order come through and the first part of the order was "file and serve PoC that comply with CPR 16.4 and for me to receive a copy of their WS."

I've had both of them come through now - an updated PoC that is 3 pages long and looks to comply with CPR and their WS that I can now actually read, so some questions/comments from me:

• I'm now invited to update my defence based on the updated PoC - I've used the recommended defence on the site and so I should now remove all references to poor PoC within this?

• Update where necessary any other updates from the recommended defence as mine was written in February 2023 so suspect some changes have come through since then.

• There was no reference to updated Witness Statement in the court order so will not touch this document ahead of the new deadline.

2nd Court date has already been set - I am available for that which is good so no updated N180 form required!

Coupon-mad

Yes strike out the poor POC paragraphs.

Add anything new if you think there's something else to say, now you've seen their POC.

Re the WS, I certainly WOULD do a fresh one too.  Unless there is nothing in their WS that you think you need to draw to the court's attention?  This is a good chance for you to comment on their WS with a fresh WS even though the Judge was silent about it.

Lought_TA

Just tweaking the Defence and updated WS now - I am going to add a section in about responding to the Claimant's WS now I've finally seen it. Nothing particularly out of the ordinary in it but some guidance on the below would be fab:

- Claimant WS keeps mentioning the sign showed that loading over 20 mins required registration - with no information on the sign (or in their WS) about where to actually register. Therefore unfair contract term.

- Claimant WS also quotes One Parking Solution v Wilshaw but found a brilliant counterargument from this thread from @Lokisan88 which I will use.

- The contract they have sent through is heavily redacted - especially on the parties involved. Therefore I will quote Hancock v Promontoria - although (and this is the point I would quite like advice on please) I don't think the contract can be construed due to...

- ... (This thread is from the exact same location as mine) I believe the fact that this claim, which was eventually dropped, uses the Claimant's old company (sole trader) makes me think the contract has been signed in his sole trader entity, rather than the Limited company, hence the need to redact. Do you think if I cobble the PCNs and Claim Form from this thread as evidence, that would be accepted?

- Finally, there are also a number of parties on the landowner side (I already had bought the Land Registry info prior to the first hearing) that could be the party who has signed the contract, but only one party (the original landowner) that has the authority to do so. Unless a contract between those parties has been included as evidence, which it has not.

Coupon-mad

Great research.

Use it all including this rebuttal about the fudgment in OPS v Wilshaw by a fairly clueless Circuit Judge with no idea about parking cases, who admitted he had no contract law experience and was led by OPS' barrister:

"my research has revealed that parking Claimants often cite 'One Parking Solution v Wilshaw' (a flawed judgment, wrongly missing the point whereby the DVLA requires mandatory landowner authority in parking cases, but it was a unique site where OPS had title in the land and were held to be 'tenants-at-will, unlike in this case).  That case seems to be used to mislead courts into thinking that no landowner contract is required (relying on an old and inapplicable 'I could sell you Buckingham Palace' argument). Quite the contrary.  Landowner authority is always required in these cases because it is a prerequisite of the DVLA KADOE rules before keeper data can even be obtained. The DLUHC Code reiterates this and it will be effectively cemented as a statutory requirement."

Lought_TA

Thanks again @Coupon-mad - I have drafted a section below in my WS about the redacted contract and previous case on this site that came from a different entity. Any comments or suggestions would be fab: (Numbering is for pictorial purposes only)

"01 - The Claimant has provided a redacted contract for the site (Exhibit XX) which claims is enough to show they had authority to charge on the land. The Court is therefore asked to see if they can construe the contract in its current form provided as evidence. Due to a number of factors, I believe this is not possible to achieve.

02 - Firstly, the contract is redacted enough to cover both parties who have signed the contract as well as, crucially, both companies/individuals identified who are involved in this contract. This is completely against Court of Appeal guidance in the Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 907 case that states:

"Since the process of construction requires the document as a whole to be considered, the starting point must always be that the entire document should be made available to the court, and any redactions to it on grounds of irrelevance should either be forbidden or, if permitted at all, convincingly justified and kept to an absolute minimum." Section 89)

"In many contexts, application of the criteria which I have outlined above might well (I say no more) lead to the conclusion that redactions similar to those in the present case were so extensive, and of such a nature, that the court could not safely resolve an issue of construction of the document in question" (Section 91) [I will include a snippet of the CoA judgement in my evidence bundle]

03 - While elements of the contract should be understandably redacted for confidentiality purposes (e.g. cost of providing services) as they are not relevant to this case, by not including either party, the Court cannot safely resolve the issue of the document in question. As this was a Court of Appeal case, this guidance is influential in this circumstance.

04 - As per my comment above [not in this snippet] dismissing the often quoted case of 'One Parking Solution v Wilshaw', contracts used in parking cases similar to these must show landowner authority.

05 - When we consider both parties that could be involved in the contract, we must also cast doubt on the reliability of this contract to be used as evidence.

The Claimant - Capital Car Park Control Ltd was incorporated as a Limited Company (Company number 12832321) on 24th August 2020.

06 - Prior to this, the Claimant traded under a different sole trader entity known as Terry Szmidt T/A Capital Car Park Control. A completely different entity from the Claimant who has brought proceedings in this case.

07 - There has been a prior County Court case which was discontinued before proceedings at this exact same site. Exhibits xx and xy [xx = PCN from previous case, xy - address provided on claim form in previous thread mentioned above] are from this prior case which show a Capital Car Park Control Ltd Parking Charge Notice and a claim brought by T/A Capital Car Park Control. The case was later dropped as the Claimant clearly realised they had no basis to bring charges under that entity.

08 - The clear difference between these two parties is further highlighted within the DVLA KADOE volumes information that shows clearly a Capital Carpark Control and Capital Car Park Control Ltd [Exhibit xz - snippets from the Excel download which show the two entities that are different]. Two different entities who use DVLA's KADOE service.

09 - The fact that T/A Capital Car Park Control brought the claim in July 2021 in the first place (still after the contract was signed in March 2021) would suggest that entity was the party who signed the contract. While this cannot be entirely proven, the contract provided within the Claimant's WS bundle means this cannot be disproven either. With the onus on the Claimant to prove liability, the attached contract cannot be used to do this.

10 - We must also consider the landowner and authority allegedly granted by this party to the Claimant. There are three potential parties that could have potentially signed the contract, although only one has the legal right to grant authority to charge. The actual landowners (as per Exhibit xxz - Land Registry data) are GLA Land and Properties Ltd and have the legal right to charge on this land. Without seeing any contract between GLA Land and Properties and Greenwich Millennium Village Ltd (lease holders on the land - Exhibit xxzz) and/or Rendall & Rittner (current property management company for this site) there is no basis for construing the contract on this current basis.

11 - With consideration from previous Court of Appeal cases and lack of clear information about both parties to have signed the provided contract, there is zero chance this Court can make an informed and clear judgement about the evidence that has been provided in Claimant's Exhibit XX."

Coupon-mad

Looks good. You should provide a footnote URL to Hancock v Promontoria to make it easy for the Judge and it saves you several extra pages in exhibits by doing it that way.