PCN - private car park - Highview (already at Debt Collector stage)

Le_Kirk

It is a minimum of 30 days hold for "whilst I deny any debt exists, I am seeking debt advice".  The data from your SAR will serve you better at witness statement (WS) stage.  The best defence is the one in the one in the first few announcements on the first page of the forum, you only need to edit paragraphs 2 & 3 and then, as you say, you add the narrative and evidence at WS stage.  The politicians are "on to it" maybe read some of the posts by @Coupon-mad and the "Call for evidence" threads.  You say "in the initial instance I use a fairly dry/standard template tweaked to fit my circumstances". Are you saying you have filed a defence already or was it the appeal perhaps?

Secret_Squirrel1970

Le_Kirk said:

It is a minimum of 30 days hold for "whilst I deny any debt exists, I am seeking debt advice".  The data from your SAR will serve you better at witness statement (WS) stage.  The best defence is the one in the one in the first few announcements on the first page of the forum, you only need to edit paragraphs 2 & 3 and then, as you say, you add the narrative and evidence at WS stage.  The politicians are "on to it" maybe read some of the posts by @Coupon-mad and the "Call for evidence" threads.  You say "in the initial instance I use a fairly dry/standard template tweaked to fit my circumstances". Are you saying you have filed a defence already or was it the appeal perhaps?

I am talking about what I will be doing....   using the altered template.  Nothing being filed for a while yet.   [I never had a chance at  the initial appeal as I only found out about this months after the 'event' due to the address balls up - but seeing as that is essentially an in-house thing run by the parking companies arguably that would have been a waste of time anyway].

Coupon-mad

All good but don't miss your defence deadline.  Don't wait about.

SAR replies are not vital to a defence.

Secret_Squirrel1970

In regards to using the template - I know the actual WS side (when it gets to that) will be different - but with so many of us using the exact same templates does that not cause issues?    I suppose it actually helps highlight just how spurious and ridiculous (and being rampantly abused) this all is.  

Coupon-mad

No issue at all.  You are entitled to use a template.

Judges are familiar with it but they are happy with it - and it is vital to inform Judges now about the latest from the DLUHC.

Secret_Squirrel1970

Have taken the template and am starting to piece things together....   I have a little over a week. 

The template all makes sense - and I have the new, updated one with the recent input re: DLUHC etc.

As I understand it am only needing to alter para 2 and 3 (possibly subsequent numbering if need to add more paragraphs).

However, a lot of mention seems to be regarding inadequate signage... and that is not an issue with mine. In fact I have time/date stamped pics of the signs in the two car parks in my phone camera back at the time in question - I was fully aware of the time limits/no return before]

The key points of mine are:-

- fully aware of the time limits of the two adjacent car parks - have contemporaneous messages to a colleague referring to having to move between the two car parks.

- the car will have moved between the two car parks in line with the time limits. In fact the car park spent less/bare minimum of time in (as the view wasn't as good)  is the one with the PCN.

- I was also operating with a colleague that day. In line with our work we often park, move, drive each others cars over short distances... so, not that it is relevant in one way as the car wont have overstayed at all, but cant remember who was driving when.

- I would have had dashcam footage to prove this is ANPR double-dipping, but by the time I was eventually made aware of this issue the footage had been long since over-written.

I am going to read through a few double dip defences, and cobble something together. 

Coupon-mad

Yes you can change the template where it talks about unclear signs but do NOT remove the point altogether.  Your case is about the signage not stating what happens on return (a separate parking event in the same day) and if they are literally next to each other in what looks like one site, maybe the delineation between the car parks may also be unclear?

Put it in your own words but don't drop the key point that criticises the terms for being unclear (in some way).   Such that neither driver was actually in breach nor agreed to pay £100.

Have a look at schedule 4 POFA. Somewhere it makes it clear that a parking charge must only relate to a SINGLE PERIOD OF PARKING.

Not two.

Secret_Squirrel1970

Okay... be gentle.... 

 This is very early first draft of what I would add to para 2, 3 onwards.....  after that the template has been left completely as it was, unaltered apart from the numbering reflecting the two extra paras I have created.

===========

 

1.  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 in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

 The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case.  The POC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle, although it is unclear who was driving at the time.

The exact POC are still unknown to the Defendant, to the point where it is hampering the production of this defence.  The Claimant was asked to give the Defendant  an extension of 30 days whilst advice was sought,  in line with paragraph 4.2 of the Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims.

This extension was granted – and yet scant days later the court papers arrived. This reduction in time (essentially ignoring the ‘debt advice extension’ which they had just granted!) has meant that the Defendant has not received the information from a SAR which was sent to the Claimant. As such the defence is being produced ‘blind’ without access to key information.

3. The Defendant was in the area at time, and concedes as much. This was for the purpose of work and was with a colleague. There are two adjacent retail parks – ******, operated by ********* Ltd and ************* Retail Park, operated by the Claimant, Highview Parking Ltd. Although operated by different PPC’s they have the same time limits “Three Hours – No Return Within One Hour”.  These time limits were recorded by the Defendant via contemporaneous photograph.

Due to the circumstances of the work assignment at the time ******* Car Park was by far the most useful and the bulk of time was spent within this car park, only the minimum amount of time was spent in ************ Car Park (the Claimant’s) in order to “reset the clock”.  This movement between the two car parks is referenced multiple times in contemporaneous SMS messages to a work colleague.

It seems clear to the Defendant that what has happened here has been faulty recording and faulty (lack of) manual checks on the part of the ANPR system employed by the Claimant at this location – colloquially known as “double dipping”. This is where the first “in” and last “out” are recorded, but interim movements seem to be “neglected”.

The Defendant would like to point out however,  that in addition to parking he and his colleague were both bona fide customers of the businesses within the retail park and have receipts which corroborate this fact.

4. The Defendant would like to state that there would have been dashcam footage of the vehicle movements which would prove the facts of this matter but due to a complication with DVLA (of which DVLA were aware but refused to rectify) notification did not reach the Defendant until long after the footage would have been overwritten.

5. Furthermore, due to the nature of the work concerned the Defendant often drives/parks work colleagues cars in the course of assignments,  and vice versa – colleagues often drive, park the Defendants vehicles. There is no recollection of, nor means to establish, who was driving the car at any given time during this period of movement between the two car parks.   The signage in this regard is inadequate – it is not clear whether it relates to the vehicle, or the driver of said vehicle.

===================

Personally I think it comes across a little chatty, and a bit light in 'legalese'  - but then the template did say [EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS...NB: defences are written in the THIRD person as 'the Defendant', not 'I did this' nor 'my/me']. 

And that is my own words and the nub of it all.... as I see it. 

Coupon-mad

It's fine - but all paragraphs need a number.  You do need to add more numbers.

change this:

"– colloquially known as “double dipping”. This is where the first “in” and last “out” are recorded, but interim movements seem to be “neglected”.

to this

– referred to now by the Government (in the new statutory Code linked below) as “double dipping”. This is where the first “in” and last “out” are recorded, but a parking firm fails to carry out mandatory human checks to identify what they call the 'orphan images' that would prove that a vehicle in fact left, and simply returned later (perhaps even with a different driver, and certainly constituting a separate parking event).

Secret_Squirrel1970

Coupon-mad said:

It's fine - but all paragraphs need a number.  You do need to add more numbers.

change this:

"– colloquially known as “double dipping”. This is where the first “in” and last “out” are recorded, but interim movements seem to be “neglected”.

to this

– referred to now by the Government (in the new statutory Code linked below) as “double dipping”. This is where the first “in” and last “out” are recorded, but a parking firm fails to carry out mandatory human checks to identify what they call the 'orphan images' that would prove that a vehicle in fact left, and simply returned later (perhaps even with a different driver, and certainly constituting a separate parking event).

Ahhh so its the actual paragraphs themselves that each get a number, rather than each point.   Thanks.

Well I can either re-number as they are or delete some of the spaces so they dont actually become a fresh paragraph. 

The rest of the template (which on mine now ran to 30+ paragraphs) I left exactly as it was in the template.


And yes, will amend the double-dipping reference.