Parking fine claim county court business centre 19 October 2022 at 8:36PM in Parking tickets, fines & parking 60 replies 1.4K views

ZR18

Hi Guys, I have drafted my defence and would be very great full if you can please help me by tweaking, changing or adding anything you may feel will make it stronger.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Full name of parking firm Ltd, not the solicitor!

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Defendant’s name from N1 claim (can’t be changed to driver now)                        

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was 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 was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

3.0 The defendant did not see any prominent signage before entering the said private land. Upon noticing a sign the defendant immediately turned the vehicle around and stopped by this sign to read. The vehicle in question is a registered disabled person’s vehicle therefore the driver was seeking information on disabled parking availability.

3.1 As a result of the claimant’s signage being confusing,hard to read due to small lettering and poor placement,it took the driver longer to ascertain all of the information displayed,however the difendant noted “IF UNSURE PLEASE SEEK FURTHER ADVICE OR REFRAIN FROM PARKING” on the claimant’s signage and exited the private land.

3.2 The vehicle did not remain on site for any longer than it was necessary to read the sign. The defendant does not agree with the particulars of the claim i.e. 'contractual breach'

or 'failure to comply with terms and conditions'as no

contract or terms and conditions were breached,understood or signed. The defendant denies this claim.

3.3 There was no sufficient grace period offered to the Defendant as per the IPC AOS Code of Practice (of which

Parking Control Management UK LTD is a member of) part B 15.1 “Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site”. As there are no adequate signs on the boundary,the Defendant had no reason to believe a charge started from the time entered the land. The time spent within was 11 minutes and 53 seconds (assuming the CCTV equipment used by the claimant has been properly maintained and serviced).

3.4 The defendant also brings to the court’s attention that they have since revisited the location in question and note that:

• There are three signage, one by a bus stop which becomes obscured when a bus stops in front, another at the far end and one by the entrance hiden by telephone boxe’s and facing away from the entrance,only visible once inside the private land. 

•Photographs will be submitted to the court as evidence.

Not changed anything from no.4 to no.27 including the statement of truth from coupon-mad’s template - edited 29 May at 2:51 PM

Coupon-mad

I saw a typo "difendant".

I was confused by this, because you said in your first post that you thought you were caught by a predatory camera car, which wouldn't have captured your car for over 11 minutes, I suspect:

"The time spent within was 11 minutes and 53 seconds (assuming the CCTV equipment used by the claimant has been properly maintained and serviced)."

1505grandad

From op:-

"............regarding a parking fine from April 2022."

From draft Defence:-

"3.3 There was no sufficient grace period offered to the Defendant as per the IPC AOS Code of Practice (of which

Parking Control Management UK LTD is a member of) part B 15.1...."

You should be using/quoting from IPC CoP version 8 dated July 2021. 

Le_Kirk

ZR18 said:

3.0 The defendant did not see any prominent signage signs before entering the said private land. Upon noticing a sign the defendant immediately turned the vehicle around and stopped by this sign to read it. The vehicle in question is a registered disabled person’s vehicle therefore the driver was seeking information on disabled parking availability.

3.1 As a result of the claimant’s signage being confusing, hard to read due to small lettering and poor placement, it took the driver longer to ascertain all of the information displayed, however the defendant difendant noted “IF UNSURE PLEASE SEEK FURTHER ADVICE OR REFRAIN FROM PARKING” on the claimant’s signage and exited the private land.

3.2 The vehicle did not remain on site for any longer than it was necessary to read the sign. The defendant does not agree with the particulars of the claim i.e. 'contractual breach' or 'failure to comply with terms and conditions' as no contract or terms and conditions were breached, understood or signed. The defendant denies this claim.

3.3 There was no not a sufficient grace period offered to the Defendant as per the IPC AOS Code of Practice (of which Parking Control Management UK LTD is a member of) part B 15.1 “Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site”. As there are no adequate signs on the boundary, the Defendant had no reason to believe a charge started from the time entered the land. The time spent within was 11 minutes and 53 seconds (assuming the CCTV equipment used by the claimant has been properly maintained and serviced).

3.4 The defendant also brings to the court’s attention that they have since revisited the location in question and note that:

• There are three signs signage, one by a bus stop, which becomes obscured when a bus stops in front, another at the far end and one by the entrance hiden hidden by telephone boxe’s boxes and facing away from the entrance, only visible once inside the private land. 

Some suggestions for you above.  Also pay attention to the edits suggested by @Coupon-mad and @1505grandad

ZR18

Coupon-mad said:

I saw a typo "difendant".

I was confused by this, because you said in your first post that you thought you were caught by a predatory camera car, which wouldn't have captured your car for over 11 minutes, I suspect:

"The time spent within was 11 minutes and 53 seconds (assuming the CCTV equipment used by the claimant has been properly maintained and serviced)."

Hi Coupon, thanks 

I’m assuming it was a predatory car loitering, as I didn’t see any CCTV on site or any signs. 

On the PCM UK site, there are 4 photos of my vehicle under “view evidence” 

P1- 14:38:02  - time of entering 

P2- 14:38:29 - just pulled up by sign

P3- 14:45:04 - stationery by sign

P4- 14:49:04 - last photo- I believe when exited site

Could there be more? Should I request all evidence available from them? 

ZR18

1505grandad said:

From op:-

"............regarding a parking fine from April 2022."

From draft Defence:-

"3.3 There was no sufficient grace period offered to the Defendant as per the IPC AOS Code of Practice (of which

Parking Control Management UK LTD is a member of) part B 15.1...."

You should be using/quoting from IPC CoP version 8 dated July 2021. 

This is what I’ve found, please advise the points I should include from below.

“13 Consideration and Grace Periods on Private Land

13.1 Motorists must be allowed a sufficient Consideration Period so they may make

an informed decision as to whether or not to enter or remain on the Private Land. If a Motorist chooses to reject the opportunity by entering or remaining on the Private Land without reading terms and conditions, they may be deemed to have accepted them immediately.

13.2 Before a Parking Charge is issued Motorists must be allowed a Grace Period save and except when 13.3 is applicable. A Grace Period is a 10 minute period at the end of a Permitted Period of Parking.

13.3 A Grace Period is not required when the Permitted Period of Parking does not exceed 1 hour providing that the signage on the site makes it clear to the Motorist, in a prominent font, that no Grace Period applies on that land.”

ZR18

Le_Kirk said:

ZR18 said:

3.0 The defendant did not see any prominent signage signs before entering the said private land. Upon noticing a sign the defendant immediately turned the vehicle around and stopped by this sign to read it. The vehicle in question is a registered disabled person’s vehicle therefore the driver was seeking information on disabled parking availability.

3.1 As a result of the claimant’s signage being confusing, hard to read due to small lettering and poor placement, it took the driver longer to ascertain all of the information displayed, however the defendant difendant noted “IF UNSURE PLEASE SEEK FURTHER ADVICE OR REFRAIN FROM PARKING” on the claimant’s signage and exited the private land.

3.2 The vehicle did not remain on site for any longer than it was necessary to read the sign. The defendant does not agree with the particulars of the claim i.e. 'contractual breach' or 'failure to comply with terms and conditions' as no contract or terms and conditions were breached, understood or signed. The defendant denies this claim.

3.3 There was no not a sufficient grace period offered to the Defendant as per the IPC AOS Code of Practice (of which Parking Control Management UK LTD is a member of) part B 15.1 “Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site”. As there are no adequate signs on the boundary, the Defendant had no reason to believe a charge started from the time entered the land. The time spent within was 11 minutes and 53 seconds (assuming the CCTV equipment used by the claimant has been properly maintained and serviced).

3.4 The defendant also brings to the court’s attention that they have since revisited the location in question and note that:

• There are three signs signage, one by a bus stop, which becomes obscured when a bus stops in front, another at the far end and one by the entrance hiden hidden by telephone boxe’s boxes and facing away from the entrance, only visible once inside the private land. 

Some suggestions for you above.  Also pay attention to the edits suggested by @Coupon-mad and @1505grandad

Thanks Le_Kirk, I will edit as suggested.

Coupon-mad

Pretty sure PCM have no camera cars.  It will be a lurking person with an iphone, not CCTV surely?

As per:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/heath-parade-graham-park-way-scam-site.html?m=1

ZR18

Coupon-mad said:

Pretty sure PCM have no camera cars.  It will be a lurking person with an iphone, not CCTV surely?

As per:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/heath-parade-graham-park-way-scam-site.html?m=1

In that case should I still include this;
” The time spent within was 11 minutes and 53 seconds (assuming the CCTV equipment used by the claimant has been properly maintained and serviced).”
thanks.

KeithP

ZR18 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Pretty sure PCM have no camera cars.  It will be a lurking person with an iphone, not CCTV surely?

As per:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/heath-parade-graham-park-way-scam-site.html?m=1

In that case should I still include this;
” The time spent within was 11 minutes and 53 seconds (assuming the CCTV equipment used by the claimant has been properly maintained and serviced).”
thanks.

Just change 'CCTV equipment' to 'camera equipment'.