PCN with County Court N1 form (Excel (ELMS Legal))

Snakes_Belly

Johnersh spotted this scrappy little sign at the bottom of the main sign telling motorists about the changes (or not). 

I wondered why so many blue badge holders had fallen foul. These car parks would attract an older demographic as well. There is a poster on another forum that has paid £510.00 (3x£170.00). Blue badge holder who was unaware of the change. I wonder how the owners of this company can sleep at night.

Ed2022

@Snakes_Belly

What is known - both are correct
What is not known - How long that the car was parked? - Around 30 minutes
                                 - Was the driver picking up or dropping off a disabled person or was the driver disabled? - the driver was  disabled

Your description is really help, wondering where the boundaries of a defence statement and WS are, I would be inclined to adapt what you have said for the defence statement. The link to the Lichfield newspaper and MPs email are strong enough to validate the Defence statement when submitting the WS.

The driver does not recall any signs on entry and in the car park itself, seeing the adjacent council run car park, assumed it was the same.

@J@Johnersh Thank you for that advice.

Snakes_Belly

The defence is the legal aspects of why the claim should be dismissed. It is written in the third person (the defendant).  It can include cases. 

The WS is more of a narrative and backs up the the defence with images, diagrams and transcripts of cases. You could use some of the comments from the petition and the comments from Michael Fabricant. 

Ed2022

Snakes_Belly said:

The defence is the legal aspects of why the claim should be dismissed. It is written in the third person (the defendant).  It can include cases. 

The WS is more of a narrative and backs up the the defence with images, diagrams and transcripts of cases. You could use some of the comments from the petition and the comments from Michael Fabricant. 

Okay thats really helpful and I shall refashion it accordingly as I had included elements of the MP's comment in particular 5.

Snakes_Belly

Ed2022 said:

Snakes_Belly said:

The defence is the legal aspects of why the claim should be dismissed. It is written in the third person (the defendant).  It can include cases. 

The WS is more of a narrative and backs up the the defence with images, diagrams and transcripts of cases. You could use some of the comments from the petition and the comments from Michael Fabricant. 

Okay thats really helpful and I shall refashion it accordingly as I had included elements of the MP's comment in particular 5.

I would mention the MP's involvement in the defence and then include the full comments in the WS.  

Snakes_Belly

Snakes_Belly said:

Johnersh spotted this scrappy little sign at the bottom of the main sign telling motorists about the changes (or not). 

I wondered why so many blue badge holders had fallen foul. These car parks would attract an older demographic as well. There is a poster on another forum that has paid £510.00 (3x£170.00). Blue badge holder who was unaware of the change. I wonder how the owners of this company can sleep at night.

Excel have not provided an image of the entry to the car park at Backcester Lane. There should have been an sign on entry showing drivers that the terms and conditions had changed as state in the IPC Code of practice page 30. That scrappy piece of paper is not sufficient.

Changes in Operator’s Terms and Conditions Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the Car Park and which materially affects the Motorist the Operator should place additional (temporary) notices at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur Parking Charges. 

https://theipc.info/brandings/2/resources/documents/Code_of_Practice_v8.pdf

Stefano123 took these images 

If all they did was attach one of those scrappy notices to the entrance sign then that is not adequate to warn people about the changes. Excel do not appear to have supplied an image of the entry to the car park. It does not suit their agenda.

Ed2022

Thank you @Snakes_Belly will finalise Ely defence statement.

Ed2022

Thank you for everyones input, I wanted to get one last opinion on my defence statement please:

Some has been removed as its from the defence statement template.

1.     The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim are 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.     The Defendant vehicle XXXXX was/has not been or present at the Three Spires Shopping Centre car parks on the 02/01/2022 as claimed in the Particulars of Claim.

3.     The Defendant would assert that the error by the Claimant in the Particulars of the claim form, the PCN being issued for an event on the 02/01/2022 (not the 25/01/2022), the Claimant has lost the claim for keepers’ liability.

4.     The Claimant when making this application and claim is no longer administrator of the Three Spires Shopping Centre short stay car park. The new owners of Three Spires Shopping centre, Evolve Estates, has terminated their contract with the Claimant. There is no effective contract between the landowner and the Claimant to issue a PCN. Please see https://lichfieldlive.co.uk/2022/06/10/new-owners-of-lichfield-shopping-centre-to-end-contract-with-car-park-operator-council-leader-confirms/

5.      The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question (registration XXXXX) and defending as the keeper.

6.     The Defendant's vehicle at the time parked in the Three Spires Shopping Centre short stay car park. It was stationary within the disabled space normally permitted by the issuance of a disability badge held by the keeper. The driver did not leave the Defendant’s vehicle so would not have read the terms and conditions. There was no clear signage entering the car park in question to indicate it was privately administered. There was no signage to indicate it was any different from the car park adjacent administered by Lichfield District Council. It was of the belief that it was council administered and holding a disabled badge, could park in the disabled bay marked in the Three Spires Shopping Centre short stay car park. The car park was previously administered by Lichfield District Council and as such Blue Badge holders would not be subject to a parking tariff.

7.     The Right Honourable MP of Lichfield Michael Fabricant in correspondence to the Defendant has stated that the contract for the Three Spires Shopping Centre short stay car park administered by the Claimant, Excel Parking Services Limited has been withdrawn due to their business practises. Mr Fabricant has stated that he has “…never before had to deal with a company that has so little interest in engaging with genuine concerns of customer…”.

8.     The Cllr Doug Pullen, leader of Lichfield District Council on the 12th of June 2022 has also given damning feedback on the Claimant, Excel Parking Services Limited. The Claimant has also been subject to adverse media attention, please see https://lichfieldlive.co.uk/2022/06/12/decision-by-shopping-centre-owner-to-end-contract-with-car-parking-company-welcomed-by-lichfield-mp/.

9.     The Claimant has shown disregard to the International Parking Community’s Code of Practice by not displaying adequate signage on entry to alert drivers that the terms and conditions had changed.

“Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the Car Park and which materially affects the Motorist the Operator should place additional (temporary) notices at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur Parking Charges.”
https://theipc.info/brandings/2/resources/documents/Code_of_Practice_v8.pdf (page 30)

10.   The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience, and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

11.   Regarding template statements, the Defendant observes after the review and research of other parking claims, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') is wholly incorrect and set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case.  Prior to this - and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims - no copy of the contract (sign) accompanied any Letter of Claim.  The POC is sparse on facts about the allegation which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however, the claim is unfair, objectionable, generic and inflated.  

12.   The Claimant claims £100 penalty inflated by a further £70 by an additional debt collection charge. This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that this is now banned. ...................

13.   This finding is underpinned by the Government..............

14.   Adding costs/damages/fees (however described) .........

15.   The Code's Ministerial Foreword is unequivocal ...........

16.   The DLUHC consulted for over ........

17.   This Claimant has not incurred .........

18.   The Defendent did not agree ....... 

19.   Whilst the new Code and Act........

20.   This overrides mistakes ..........

POFA and CRA breaches

21.   Pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) ............

22.   Claiming costs on ..........

23.   Section 71 creates ......

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished (lack of legitimate interest/prominence of terms)

24.   ParkingEye overcame the ..........

25.   Without the Beavis case to .......

26.   In the present case, the Claimant...........

27.   Fairness and clarity ........

Lack of landowner authority evidence and lack of ADR

28.   DVLA data is only .........

29.   The Claimant ..........

30.   The current Landowner would not have given authority to the Claimant given the Claimant no longer administrators Three Spires Shopping Centre short stay car park. The new owners of Three Spires Shopping centre, Evolve Estates, has terminated their contract with the Claimant. There is no effective contract between the landowner and the Claimant to issue a PCN. Please see https://lichfieldlive.co.uk/2022/06/10/new-owners-of-lichfield-shopping-centre-to-end-contract-with-car-park-operator-council-leader-confirms/

Conclusion

31.   The claim is entirely w....... 

32.   With the DLUHC's .......

33.   In the matter of costs, the Defendant asks:

34.   Attention is drawn .......  

Coupon-mad

This needs adjusting because you are saying earlier on, that the car was not parked there on the material date:

"The Defendant's vehicle at the time parked in the Three Spires Shopping Centre short stay car park. It was stationary within the disabled space normally permitted by the issuance of a disability badge held by the keeper. The driver did not leave the Defendant’s vehicle so would not have read the terms and conditions. There was no clear signage entering the car park in question to indicate it was privately administered. There was no signage to indicate it was any different from the car park adjacent administered by Lichfield District Council. It was of the belief that it was council administered and holding a disabled badge, could park in the disabled bay marked in the Three Spires Shopping Centre short stay car park. The car park was previously administered by Lichfield District Council and as such Blue Badge holders would not be subject to a parking tariff."

Ed2022

Coupon-mad said:

This needs adjusting because you are saying earlier on, that the car was not parked thereon the material date:

"The Defendant's vehicle at the time parked in the Three Spires Shopping Centre short stay car park. ......"

Thanks @Coupon-mad. It begs the question, given the particulars in the claim by the Claimant state 2/1/2022 (yet the actual event was 25/1/2022), should I just flat deny. Or also have a defence for the actual date (25/01/2022)?

@Snakes_Belly did mentioned the potential loss of keepers liability to which I have made reference to - in particular 3 of my defence.

My thoughts - inclined to deny the claim so should be struck out although still have a defence for the 25/1/2022?

Yours thoughts would be appreciated?