PCN from Parking Control Management

Coupon-mad

That is relevant for WS stage. You can argue that there was no breach of a 'relevant obligation' and you made 'best endeavours' to comply, and did comply with all that the permit scheme requires.

A similar argument has been used in proper Local Authority parking cases, where a Traffic Order does not state that there is any contravention for 'failure to continuously display'.

Which would be an unfair term in a consumer contract anyway, arguably.  You can't be liable for whoever knocks against the car after you left it (clampers used to shake cars to dislodge permits).

...oh wait...PCM are ex-clampers...

MadMunk

I'm half expecting them to stone wall me now for a few years in the hope I lose my evidence and they can then catch me out.  They can't seriously hope that in any world of rational thinking a magistrate will side with them?  The folks working there must be pretty desperate to go along with all of this.. *thinks of non swearing words*.... ...   ... foul play.  I'd get more job satisfaction cleaning up dog poop.

MadMunk

Hi all

I am back somewhat sooner than expected.  I thought these incompetents would have taken much longer.

I have received a claim form from the county court business centre this afternoon dated 11th November.  This means I have 14 days from 16th (+5 days) to respond.  Meaning by months end.

Should I respond instantly?  I have prepared a defence thanks to your assistance back in July.

KeithP

MadMunk said:

I have received a claim form from the county court business centre this afternoon dated 11th November.  This means I have 14 days from 16th (+5 days) to respond.  

With a Claim Issue Date of 11th November, you have until Wednesday 30th November to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 14th December 2022 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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'.

MadMunk

As I'm not one for putting things off and really see no reason to long this out after the 14 months it's been looming like a shadow,  I'll get onto the acknowledgement in the next 24 hours.

I'll post my full defence below, in case it's worth a re-revision.  If anyone wouldn't mind giving it a once over, I would appreciate it.  If happy, I will submit it in 2-3 days time.

DEFENCE

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim were an unexpected shock. 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 was a breach of any prominent term, and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The Defendant is a resident, living at the estate where the Claimant performs its parking enforcement activities. The vehicle in question is used infrequently and remains parked the rest of the time.

4. The parking rights stated within the Defendant’s tenancy agreement allow for quiet enjoyment, and use, of communal areas and parking.  The Defendant displays a permit as a courtesy not an obligation.

5. The Defendant had displayed a permit upon leaving their vehicle.  The permit was fully visible but very flimsy and had curled up in sunlight, despite being untouched and within the holder supplied by the Claimant.  The Defendant avers that these permits are not fit for purpose and any contract was frustrated not by any action or conduct of the Defendant, but by the Claimant's unsuitably flimsy paper permit and holder.  The Defendant expected that said permit would remain displayed within its holder between visits to their vehicle. That is the intended purpose of the products. Products which are sold, for a cost of £15 per permit and £2.50 per holder, to consumers and therefore subject to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

6. The Defendant avers that no validation activities have been performed on the transferable permits manufactured/supplied by the Claimant.  The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that qualitative and quantitive testing of any form has taken place prior to distribution of the transferable permit and holder products to customers.  In the interest of transparency and removing the possibility of substitute evidence being provided, the Defendant also puts the Claimant to strict proof of validation of the non-transferable, directly applied to windscreen permits.

<Normal Para 4 to end>

Coupon-mad

That is really good!

MadMunk

Thanks Coupon-mad

I have a query.  I have just noticed that the PCN reference number on the CCBC Claim form and on one of the 6 LBC's Gladstones sent me doesn't match the one they have been chasing for 14 months.

Is it legal to switch the PCN to an old, dead, discontinued one from years before?  With no clear warning to me.  With no additional PAP notification... nothing?

I think they have realized that this invoice is ambulance chasing and have therefore resurrected one I paid a private company a fee to discontinue 11 months prior which was apparently in "limbo" when I submitted my SAR.

This stinks of malpractice, surely they cannot just change a tiny number on 2 documents with no clear warning they are doing so?

Coupon-mad

It's not illegal but breaches the PAP. I would add that to your defence and state that the Defendant has had no opportunity in pre-action, to respond about PCN ref xxxxxxx at all, because the bombardment of Letters before Claim did not all even mention this supposed parking charge. It seems to have been switched into this claim as an afterthought

MadMunk

7. The Defendant has had no opportunity in pre-action to respond or prepare for PCN ref xxxxxxx as all correspondence from both Claimant and their Solicitor have not contained the required information for the alternative/additional claim.  It is unclear to the Defendant which claim is being pursued by the Claimant.  The multiple Letters Before Claim from the Claimant's solicitors have contained a mixture of reference numbers which have not been clearly and concisely brought to the Defendant's attention.  With the only mention of the new PCN reference being the reverse of a single invoice from the Claimant's Solicitor.  The only other mention is the reference contained on the Claim Form sent by the CCBC.  The claim reference number appears to have been switched to another.  The Defendant can only surmise that this is a clerical error.

Not sure if I should retain the last bit in bold or remove it, it almost feels like I'm giving them an out.  Should I just remove it as they're obviously trying to hang me by going for a more winnable PCN and dropping the unwinnable one until they see an outcome in their favor?

Coupon-mad

Leave it in except for the 'clerical error' last sentence. It lets them off.