UKPC - PCN for parking on double yellow lines

LekkerManLekker

I have submitted my Acknowledgement of Service a few days ago.

Should I be receiving some kind of email acknowledging my acknowledgment of service, because I haven't?

B789

LekkerManLekker said:

I have submitted my Acknowledgement of Service a few days ago.

Should I be receiving some kind of email acknowledging my acknowledgment of service, because I haven't?

Yes. You should receive an immediate auto-response from the CCBC that your email has been received. Send it again until you receive the autoresponse. Did you enter your correct email address? Check your MCOL account to see if it acknowledges your AoS.

KeithP

B789 said:

LekkerManLekker said:

I have submitted my Acknowledgement of Service a few days ago.

Should I be receiving some kind of email acknowledging my acknowledgment of service, because I haven't?

Yes. You should receive an immediate auto-response from the CCBC that your email has been received. Send it again until you receive the autoresponse. Did you enter your correct email address? Check your MCOL account to see if it acknowledges your AoS.

Except that if the OP followed the guidance in the NEWBIES thread, there will have been no email involved in filing an Acknowledgment of Service.  

@LekkerManLekker, think about it... 
You are acknowledging service of the claim. Are you really expecting the CCBC to acknowledge service of your Acknowledgment of Service? Would you then feel duty bound to acknowledge service of their acknowledgment of service of your Acknowledgment of Service of the Claim? Where does it end?

In due course, your MCOL Claim History will have lines on it something like...

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on dd/mm/2023 at hh:mm:ss
Your acknowledgment of service was received on dd/mm/2023 at hh:mm:ss

B789

KeithP said:
Except that if the OP followed the guidance in the NEWBIES thread, there will have been no email involved in filing an Acknowledgment of Service.    

Of course you are right. My addled brain was thinking of the defence. Once more unto the naughty step. 

LekkerManLekker

All good then.  Just need to email the defence now.

• A claim was issued against you on 28/03/2023
• Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 08/04/2023 at 16:09:04
  
• Your acknowledgment of service was received on 11/04/2023 at 01:06:30

Fruitcake

In addition to the defence points writ for you by C-m, I suggest you add that in the appeal case of Jopson v Homeguard, the judge stated that picking up/dropping off, or attending to a vicissitude of some short duration is not parking.
Since this was an appeal case, it is persuasive on the lower courts.

The transcript is available online, and the relevant judge's comments can be found around paragraphs 19 - 20.

Case number B9GF0A9E (although sometimes the leading letter B is omitted on websites).

B789

Jopson v Homeguard:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ezhkj6epu66l1r/JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-2906J-Approved.pdf?dl=0

Fruitcake

B789 said:

Jopson v Homeguard:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ezhkj6epu66l1r/JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-2906J-Approved.pdf?dl=0

That's one of the versions that has omitted the leading letter B from the case number.

LekkerManLekker

Hi All,

These are the first 5 paragraphs for my defence, subsequent paragraphs are copied from Johny86.  I added the in Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Securities 9GF0A9E appeal as suggested (paragraph 4).  Would appreciate some eyes over it.

Thanks


******************

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. 
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle on the material date. The Defendant went to pick up his wife and young daughter who were at the indoor play area (Adventure Kidz) as it was raining and the play session had ended.  On arrival, the side parking bays were full but there was plenty of space in the car park, and the Defendant was only there to pick up passengers.  As boarding or alighting is specifically allowed on double yellow lines (it is exempt activity as defined in the Highway Code and is not 'parking' and cannot result in any penalty on double yellow lines on street) the Defendant briefly stopped, without obstructing any person or vehicle, just for the time it took to collect his wife and child in the driving rain. 
3. The new statutory Code of Practice linked later in this defence (temporarily stalled but it is being reintroduced by the Government after an Impact Assessment in 2023 which will only address monetary issues, not other clauses) also defines 'parking' as not including picking up or setting down passengers.  In the statutory definitions, it says at 2.19 (parked/parking) that parking is "an instance of a vehicle being caused by the driver to remain stationary other than in the course of driving (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers leave or enter the vehicle)". 
4. In Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Securities case number 9GF0A9E, His Honour Judge J Harris QC the judge states "getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration" is not parking. This was an appeal court case and thus persuasive on the lower courts. The court transcript of that hearing and judgment, heard on appeal by HHJ Harris sitting at Oxford Court, will be provided at witness statement stage in support of this defence. 
5. No signs were seen and having been back for a look, the Defendant avers that the prominence and legibility of any supposed parking terms is extremely poor at this location, even in good weather.  The only visible 'consumer notice' (Consumer Rights Act 2015 definition applies) was the provision of double yellow lines, the normal interpretation of which is to allow brief stops for exempt activity.  No fair consideration or grace period was allowed either, despite this being mandatory in the Claimant's Code of Practice.  The Defendant is unsure what the cause of action is, and what he is supposed to have done wrong, given that the Particulars are silent about the precise allegation, grace periods or any terms of the supposed 'contract'. 

Throwawaycheesecake

I think an addition to 5. it is worth explicitly referring to to Consumer Rights Act 2015, s.69 (1) -  even if the claimant alleges a breach of conditions the double yellow signage is most favourable to the consumer and prevails.