UKPC - PCN for parking on double yellow lines

Fruitcake

I agree. Add the suggestion from Throwawaycheesecake, otherwise it looks okay to me apart from the missing B in the Jopson case number. It's only minor, but it won't hurt to be pedantic.

Le_Kirk

Are you using the template defence because that paragraph 1 doesn’t look right. Also para 1 looks more like a witness statement (WS) than a defence; keep it to the salient facts with short and punchy technical arguments and save the narrative for the WS

LekkerManLekker

@Le_Kirk
@Throwawaycheesecake
@Fruitcake

Does this look better?

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.
3. The Defendant went to stated car park on the material date to collect wife and child who were visiting the indoor play area (Adventure Kidz). The Defendant briefly stopped on the double yellow lines due to car park being full as it is an exempt activity, it is not 'parking', and cannot result in any penalty on double yellow lines as per the Highway Code.
4. The new statutory Code of Practice (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)".
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. 
6. With reference to Point 5, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, s.69 (1) states that "If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail." The Defendant avers to the Highway Code as the normal interpretation of stopping on double-yellow lines to drop-off and collect passengers.
7. 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'. 
8. 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.

Coupon-mad

That's not the template first paragraph.  That worries us because it then looks to us like you aren't using the rest of it.

KeithP

LekkerManLekker said:

The Defendant briefly stopped on the double yellow lines due to car park being full as it is an exempt activity, it is not 'parking', and cannot result in any penalty on double yellow lines as per the Highway Code.

Can you perhaps rephrase that?
It doesn't make a lot of sense at the moment.

Car park being full is an exempt activity, or is 'it' - whatever 'it' is - an exempt activity?
Where in the Highway Code does it mention 'exempt activity'?
Where in the Highway Code does it say this 'exempt activity' 'cannot result in any penalty'?
What is the relevance of the Highway Code in a private car park?

B789

This is an example of the template you should be using:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/66hosld75llha3j/2023_defence.pdf?dl=0

LekkerManLekker

B789 said:

This is an example of the template you should be using:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/66hosld75llha3j/2023_defence.pdf?dl=0

No, I think I used the incorrect one then.  I used the one from Johny86's thread.  I will redo and make use of this one, thanks/

PS: Where do I find this link, I couldn't find it on Johny86's profile?

Boat_to_Bolivia

@B789 has posted a link to his dropbox account with @Johny86's Defence ready and waiting for you to adapt.

LekkerManLekker

Thanks everyone for your help.  I now have the correct defence template and adapted it as below, along with your suggestions and comments above.

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

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 on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. 

3) The Defendant went to stated car park on the material date to collect wife and child who were visiting the indoor play area (Adventure Kidz). The Defendant briefly stopped on the double yellow lines to collect passengers as car park was full. 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 the Highway Code which is to allow brief stops dropping off and collecting of passengers  unless upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping. 

4) The new statutory Code of Practice (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)".

5) In Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Securities case number B9GF0A9E, 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. 

6) 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'. 

7) The Consumer Rights Act 2015, s.69 (1) states that "If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail." The Defendant avers to the Highway Code as the normal interpretation of stopping on double-yellow lines to drop-off and collect passengers. 

8) The Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”.   

Fruitcake

You don't need, liability is denied" in para 2 because it is already in para 1. The rest looks fine to me.