County Court Claim received not sure on defence strategy - I beat the system!

alldoors

Someone has very kindly sent me some photos and video and I now have the information from the sign and it says "no waiting or parking on roads, pavements or verges at any time".  The sign is quite a way from where my DD parked. I also have photos of about 15 cars parked up all over the grass. Not one of these has a ticket on it.

When you look up the definition of a verge it says "a strip of land between the roadside and the fence, hedge or wall adjacent to it". This is land she parked next to is next to a path not a road. Can we use this as an argument or are we wasting our time defending.
 

Coupon-mad

You are not wasting your time defending, and a sign that says those prohibitive words offers no allowed parking contract (nothing of value) so the elements of an agreed contract is not there.

As per PCM v Bull (Google it).

alldoors

Coupon-mad said:

You are not wasting your time defending, and a sign that says those prohibitive words offers no allowed parking contract (nothing of value) so the elements of an agreed contract is not there.

As per PCM v Bull (Google it).

Thank you so much for your reply. Just read it and found it very interesting. So glad I found this forum. Thank you for putting your valuable time to stand up to these parking firms ripping people off.

MothballsWallet

@alldoors Just out of interest, which Uni is it?

alldoors

Have spent the last 2 days trying to absorb as much information on this Forum as possible. It has blown my mind. Have emailed First Parking LLP asking for the "SAR". Have replied to the County Court on Sunday 25/09/2022 saying that the case will be defenced and done the "Acknowlegement of Service" via the online portal. I have now started drafting the "Defence". I note that I have until the 20th October to file the Defence but I am away for 10 days and don't really want to be working on this on my hols. Would much appreciate if someone could have a look and see if it makes sense. I have also attached a copy of the sign that was present on parking.
Not sure if I should mention who the Uni are just in case.  This was not a car park so it's more like trespass I suppose.

Here is what I have drafted so far:-

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

 3. The Defendant believes that the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘PoFA’), and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the ('PoFA'), Schedule 4.  The Defendant was not served with a “letter of claim" prior to receiving a County Court claim and the burden of proof lies with the Claimant to show good service, POFA compliance and a liability trail.

4.The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant First Parking Llp for a total amount of £241.39 (inclusive of a £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs in relation to an £80 Parking Charge Notice (PCN). The Claimant claims for a Parking charge issued to vehicle XXXXX at (address to be completed and also the date of breach)

5.The Defendant did not park on a roadway, path or verge near XXXXX Hall on 19/01/2022 and the Defendant does not agree with the particulars of the claim of “contractual breach” or failure to comply with Terms and Conditions. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their assertions, which are currently as clear as mud from the sparse particulars. XXXXX Hall is student accommodation. Students park on the grass outside of their rooms which has a pathway running through it. There is a sign which reads "no waiting or parking on roads, pavements or verges". The Defendant’s understanding of a “verge” is a patch of ground that runs along side a road. As students regularly park on the grass outside of their University Accommodation without getting a PCN, the Defendant's understanding that this patch of grass is not classed as a verge.

Coupon-mad

You don't need point 4, as it adds nothing.  I would replace it with a point about prohibitive signs and PCM v Bull (search the forum and find a defence with that in it). 

I have rarely seen a F1rst Parking PCN that is non-POFA and if you are admitting to driving then remove 3 as well.  The POFA means nothing at all in a case against a driver.

alldoors

Coupon-mad said:

You don't need point 4, as it adds nothing.  I would replace it with a point about prohibitive signs and PCM v Bull (search the forum and find a defence with that in it). 

I have rarely seen a F1rst Parking PCN that is non-POFA and if you are admitting to driving then remove 3 as well.  The POFA means nothing at all in a case against a driver.

Thanks Coupon-mad. Will have a look at that PCM v Bull. Re-draft and repost it.

alldoors

Here we go, 2nd attempt!

1.     It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

2.     The Defendant did not park on a roadway, pavement or verge near XXXXX Hall on 19/01/2022 and the Defendant does not agree with the particulars of the claim of “contractual breach” or failure to comply with terms and conditions. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their assertions, which are currently as clear as mud from the sparse particulars. XXXXX Hall is student accommodation. Students regularly park on the grass outside of their rooms which has a pavement running through it. There is a sign which reads no waiting or parking on roads, pavements or verges. The Defendant’s understanding of a “verge” is a patch of ground that runs alongside a road. As students regularly park on the grass outside of their University Accommodation without getting a PCN, it can therefore not be classed as a verge and the Defendant was not in breach of any contract.

3.     In addition, the “contractual terms and conditions” on the sign are misleading with wording that dresses up the charge as a ‘contractual’ fee, which it is not. One cannot contract to be allowed to do something the sign states as not ‘permitted’. This echoes the judgement of DJ Glen in PCMUK v Bull.

4.     This sign indicates that there is an absolute prohibition against parking on a road, pavement or verge at any time, for any period. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway, pavement or verge. If you do, then we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass. The Defendant does not agree that the area where parked was a roadway, pavement or verge in any case.

 

 

 

KeithP

alldoors said:
The Defendant’s understanding of a “verge” is a patch of ground that runs alongside a road. As students regularly park on the grass outside of their University Accommodation without getting a PCN, it can therefore not be classed as a verge and the Defendant was not in breach of any contract. 

I cannot understand your logic there.
You appear to be saying that because students park on the grass, that grass cannot be classed as a verge.
If you run with that, expect both the Judge and Claimant to ask you questions about it.

alldoors

KeithP said:

alldoors said:
The Defendant’s understanding of a “verge” is a patch of ground that runs alongside a road. As students regularly park on the grass outside of their University Accommodation without getting a PCN, it can therefore not be classed as a verge and the Defendant was not in breach of any contract. 

I cannot understand your logic there.
You appear to be saying that because students park on the grass, that grass cannot be classed as a verge.
If you run with that, expect both the Judge and Claimant to ask you questions about it.

This is where I am confused. One of the students regularly parks in exactly the same place and has never recieved a PCN. My daughter literally parked up, dropped off some stuff out of the boot, had a coffee and then went on her way. This was on the "garden" outside of the Uni Hall room where her boyfriend was living. She was not on the road (which has double yellow lines on) or pavement. The grass she parked on is also not adjoining a road. There is a path running through it. She reckons she was there about 30 mins. She was shocked to receive the PCN on her screen on her return. I told her to ignore it as I didnt think they would bother taking it any further for a one off event. However, she then gets the court claim.

So do I just go down the route of the PCM v Bull scenario then that there could not be a contract? Bear with me, this has been a steep learning curve but I am quite prepared to go to court with her to argue the "damages" they have added on as at no point does it mention "damages" anywhere in the text on that sign. Even if they win, would they get away with anything over the original £80 plus £35 court fee and £50 legal costs? They want her to pay £241 to make it go away. (Which I will have to pay £200 of as this is all my fault!)

This is defence draft attempt 3:-

1.     It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

2.     The Defendant does not agree with the particulars of the claim of “contractual breach” or failure to comply with terms and conditions. 

3.     In addition, the “contractual terms and conditions” on the sign are misleading with wording that dresses up the charge as a ‘contractual’ fee, which it is not. One cannot contract to be allowed to do something the sign states as not ‘permitted’. This echoes the judgement of DJ Glen in PCMUK v Bull.

4.     The sign indicates that there is an absolute prohibition against parking on a road, pavement or verge at any time, for any period. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway, pavement or verge. If you do, then we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass.