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

Coupon-mad

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)?

If you are 100% sure that 25/1 was the parking date and not the date of the NTK, then I think our solicitor poster @Johnersh would say to defend ONLY against the particulars as stated.  Car was not there on 2/1/22.

Ed2022

Coupon-mad said:

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)?

If you are 100% sure that 25/1 was the parking date and not the date of the NTK, then I think our solicitor poster @Johnersh would say to defend ONLY against the particulars as stated.  Car was not there on 2/1/22.

The actual events was definitely on the 25/1 and that's what the photos from Excel show of the car number plate on that date.

Coupon-mad

Then wait for Johnersh to stop by but I also say only defend the claim as pleaded.

Johnersh

That is the case they have presented to court,  so that is the case you respond to. 

For a paid car park,  there is the possibility of a PCN for every day of the calendar year.  The fact that you recall receiving a PCN on 25/01/22 does not exclude the possibility that they are alleging an infringement on 02/01/22,  particularly since the industry often issue PCNs by post after the event. 

If it was me defending and the car was elsewhere on that date,  I would do a simple denial (pruning the template significantly) and make clear where you say the car was. 

It is not for the o/p to:

1. Point out error
(see, amongst others,  Woodward v phoenix healthcare) 
2. Invite C to strengthen their case
3. Second guess what they may mean or speculate why C may change or adapt their case from any preceding correspondence.

Strong representations will need to be made if C tries to say "nothing to see".  Don't let them get away with that.

They will need to apply to amend and you will need a new defence.  The driver and any relevant witnesses may all be different between the two dates. 

Ed2022

Johnersh said:

That is the case they have presented to court,  so that is the case you respond to. 

......... 

Thank you, to which I have removed the majority of the defence except;

• Stating the vehicle was not there
• Where it actually way
• Witnesses statements can be provided to that effect / documentary evidence
• It should be struck out

Had a read of the case summary, Woodward v phoenix healthcare, really full and will quote if need to make a further statement. Or should I in this defence?

Snakes_Belly

You have mentioned that the IPC code of practice states that there should be signage at the entrance when terms and conditions are changed. This was a major change in terms and conditions as it went from council to private and yet it does not seem to have been taken very seriously by the PPC. They see this as "nice to do but not essential". That is an actual quote from the director of an IPC member.  This is why a new independant regulator is needed. They are totally lawless.

I don't know who attached the warning the notice below but it is not sufficent. A blue badge holder would need to be made aware that the terms and conditions had changed at the entrance to the car park as they would not usually visit the pay station.  

  

Some blue badge holders who regularly use the car parks have received multiple PCN's some of them totalling over £1000.00.

Johnersh

Hang on.... 

If it were me,  I'd only defend regarding the date in the particulars. 

That means all the usual stuff about signage and terms are irrelevant, since objectively the car wasn't actually there. I'd go with a simple denial. 

It is denied that the defendant parked at location x on [date] . 

On date, the defendants vehicle was located at y.  The defendant will produce evidence to the court if required to evidence that. Accordingly,  no contract was capable of being formed with the defendant, driver of the vehicle, or at all. 

The defendant denies that there is any liability to the claimant for the sums claimed in the particulars of claim arising from the alleged breach of contract, costs or interest thereon. 

I would not acknowledge any possibility of error.  (Woodward is relevant ONLY if it is later suggested that the defendant had a duty to put the claimant right).

The particulars are Chock full of typos so a judge could conceivably consider that you should have known what was intended.  To which I'd say - 

1. but that wasn't what they pleaded, 
2. they are professionally represented and the MD of Elms Legal himself (see linkedin) who is also a solicitor has signed and approved the claim form (presumably having checked it). 
3. I simply don't see how it can be suggested that the onus is on a defendant to respond second guessing what claim the claimant intended to bring,  rather than the one made,
4. That parking companies often pursue separate pcns in different sets of proceedings. 
5. Even if you accept it is an error,  you should not be penalised (Woodward) and C must apply to rectify it,  not simply seek the court to ignore the plain meaning of the words used in the particulars. 

I emphasise again.  It is the o/p's case and only he knows the full facts,  so he needs to satisfy himself that he is comfortable with the arguments he intends to make. There are *never* guarantees in litigation.  

Note: The cheapest course will be for C to simply to wait for this to be struck out and then issue fresh court proceedings.  It is most unlikely that they will spend £255 on an application to court. If they want a consent order make sure they offer to bear the costs of their stupidity. 

Ed2022

Johnersh said:

Hang on.... 

If it were me,  I'd only defend regarding the date in the particulars. 

That means all the usual stuff about signage and terms are irrelevant, since objectively the car wasn't actually there. I'd go with a simple denial. 

It is denied that the defendant parked at location x on [date] . 

On date, the defendants vehicle was located at y.  The defendant will produce evidence to the court if required to evidence that. Accordingly,  no contract was capable of being formed with the defendant, driver of the vehicle, or at all. 

The defendant denies that there is any liability to the claimant for the sums claimed in the particulars of claim arising from the alleged breach of contract, costs or interest thereon. 

Thank you. @Johnersh and @Snakes_Belly.

I was going to write something a little more complicate but I have to say your suggested statement is a little cleaner.

Snakes_Belly

I agree with Johnersh in principle however did you actually received a PCN on the car on the 25th or a PCN through the post on the 25th?  My understanding is that this car park is monitored by ANPR. 

Ed2022

Snakes_Belly said:

I agree with Johnersh in principle however did you actually received a PCN on the car on the 25th or a PCN through the post on the 25th?  My understanding is that this car park is monitored by ANPR. 

The PCN was for the 25/01/2022 and that is what the photographs show for the DPA.