PCM Claim Form time to write a defence

Johnson2015

@Coupon-mad should I keep this bit in section 4 or am I repeating myself in the TD ??

4.6. There is no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
4.7. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.
4.8. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.
4.9. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
4.10. Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
4.11. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.
4.12. Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
(i)  If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
(ii) The written authorisation must also set out:
- the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined by any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation;
- any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement;
- who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs;
- the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Coupon-mad

You are still trying to add stuff that's just repetition. Everything is already in the Template Defence.

You don't need that preliminary section at all.

Just add your facts in para 3.  One paragraph talking about the car park and why you were there and what went wrong.

And in para 2 you add two words to say you were driving if you were, OR deny it if you were not driving, or say you do not know (if that is true).

Johnson2015

Coupon-mad said:

You are still trying to add stuff that's just repetition. Everything is already in the Template Defence.

You don't need that preliminary section at all.

Just add your facts in para 3.  One paragraph talking about the car park and why you were there and what went wrong.

And in para 2 you add two words to say you were driving if you were, OR deny it if you were not driving, or say you do not know (if that is true).

Yes I hear you, but I need to add the part about forbidding signage as an alternative defence. I know that last time that's how I won. I will remove the rest as you say. I don't want to repeat myself. 

Coupon-mad

Your draft keeps denying being the driver?  Truth?

And if you won a previous case on that basis about the SAME CLAIMANT AND SAME CAR PARK(?) why isn't your defence saying so and asking the court to strike this (duplicate facts) case out due to cause of action estoppel?

1505grandad

Still quoting "his/her"  -  para 3

You state:-

"4.12. Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements....."  -  is the claimant a BPA AoS member?

Johnson2015

Coupon-mad said:

Your draft keeps denying being the driver?  Truth?

And if you won a previous case on that basis about the SAME CLAIMANT AND SAME CAR PARK(?) why isn't your defence saying so and asking the court to strike this (duplicate facts) case out due to cause of action estoppel?

Not the driver. Not sure how I can make that any clearer!!!!!!! Its my car, I am the registered keeper, but I have a 2nd car for my family that I drive and this car is driven for work purposes by my better half. So I'll reiterate. I am Not the driver of said vehicle. In fact we worked out today it had been parked up for several days as it was half term as he works in a school. But he is the main driver of this car and is the main insured driver on the vehicle. I am insured to drive it but I don't as I have a big family and we wouldn't fit into the car in question.

Also, I am not sure where you have got the idea that I won a case based on THIS car, on the SAME claiment. 

Myself and my other half won a case based on our 2nd vehicle in a completely different location with the exact same parking company aprox 4 years ago. The case was won on forbidding signage. You cannot enter into a contract as the sign is a forbidding signage. There isn't a contract to be made (as you well know). I think you might be confusing my case with someone else on here 🤔

Johnson2015

1505grandad said:

Still quoting "his/her"  -  para 3

You state:-

"4.12. Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements....."  -  is the claimant a BPA AoS member?

Thank you for spotting this. I've got a Learning difficulty so writing/typing and reading are a huge challenge for me. Takes me ages to get simple things in the right order. 🙄

Johnson2015

1505grandad said:

Still quoting "his/her"  -  para 3

You state:-

"4.12. Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements....."  -  is the claimant a BPA AoS member?

How would I find that information?

KeithP

I typed is there a list of bpa aos members? into google and hey presto! a comprehensive list appeared as the first item returned.

1505grandad

Also Google IPC AoS members  -  you will find the claimant in that list.