County Court claim received from Gladstone courtesy of District enforcement limited

ForeverEvan

Good Evening 

I have received a county court claim for 2 unpaid PCN's today (Issue date 14th June).

These are related to 2 days of parking on a little spot of private land which people have been parking on for years with no issues. However in the last 12-18 months (I think) signage has suddenly appeared at the site (not ever noticed until the PCN's were received) and an overly keen camera operator has been employed taking stills of the vehicles supposedly contravening the new rules. The area in question is a small area with a number of businesses on either side of it with no clear boundaries and limited lighting in the evenings/early morning. The way I was parked is also out the way and causing no issues to anyone and the time of the day there is no traffic in the area that would have any issue with my vehicle, I cannot see where the damages for them occur other then to make money from people entering the site not realising and paying the PCN's.

I have read the newbie thread and will be working my way through the suggested actions tomorrow as well as starting a first draft of a defence. 

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

It might not be a good idea to use phrases like "I was parked".
Far better to say "the vehicle was parked". That way the driver's identity is not given away.

With a Claim Issue Date of 14th June, you have until Monday 3rd July to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 17th July 2023 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Coupon-mad

Can you show us a Google Streetview link to the place and get some photos of the signs?

ForeverEvan

I'm unable to send a link as i'm a new member but if you search for 20 Chapel street Nuneaton and zoom out a couple you can compare the area to the above image. Google streets is also out of date with none of the parking signage on the building.

Coupon-mad

 I cannot see where the damages for them occur 

That's not a defence argument and nor is it a thing to say there was no loss (because there doesn't have to be).

Those signs are not trying to claim damages or breach of contract.

They purport to offer parking at £100 per day.

Would it be true to say you didn't do any if the listed three things?

And true that you saw NO signs?

And would it be true to say that there are no prominent signs at the entrance that would comply with the IPC CoP rule about mandatory extra signs at sites with new/changed restrictions (read it)?

Those are your facts for paragraph 3 of the template defence.

ForeverEvan

Morning,

Yeah I know that's not a defence just astounds me the amount of costs they can claim that's all.
There are no signs upon entry onto the site and no clear boundary between the different businesses land ownership. The first bit of signage to be visible upon entry would be the one on the wall next to the map of the area in my photo. Which early morning in the dark is not very prominent.

As per the 3 things you listed:
1. The vehicle did not have authority to park but was parked without knowingly entering the contract
2. There are no marked bays in that area
3. No obstruction was caused though

Would there be a substantial defence solely on the basis signage is inadequate and the driver of the vehicle entered into a contract without knowingly entering?

I'll have a read of the ruling you mentioned now 

ForeverEvan

I have just read through the IPC COP and there are no extra signage to display the change of terms and conditions. Also I noted the IPC COP states in section 13 referencing grace periods, Their evidence only includes a still image of the vehicle on site with no time of entering or leaving stated. Also 13.3 is not adhered to on the signage, could there an argument to be pursued down that route? regarding proof of parking?

ForeverEvan

I have completed the AOS today.

Coupon-mad

ForeverEvan said:

I have just read through the IPC COP and there are no extra signage to display the change of terms and conditions. Also I noted the IPC COP states in section 13 referencing grace periods, Their evidence only includes a still image of the vehicle on site with no time of entering or leaving stated. Also 13.3 is not adhered to on the signage, could there an argument to be pursued down that route? regarding proof of parking?

Yes absolutely but it's not about proof of parking.

You have exposed several breaches of the IPC Code of Practice and that's what you put to replace paras 3 and 4 of the template defence (para 4 of the template isn't really needed for a Gladstones claim).  Show us your draft.

The only issue to address is how come you repeated the mistake twice?  Was it because you didn't know because they lurked and took photos for a sneaky postal PCN and failed to put a PCN openly on the windscreen?

ForeverEvan

I have used what I think is the most recent template referencing the extra charges added after the PCN. Also I think this is the most relatable template I found to my case.
I feel like I need to elaborate more on the statement 8.2 from the IPC COP but I have seen other peopls posts where they have put to much in the defence and they have been told its a WS phrase so I have left it as non descript as I can without leaving out the information.
I wasnt sure on what order to address everything so its ina  timescale kind of order. 

3.1 On xx/xx/xxxx the defendant entered the private land the claimant manages, no signage was clearly visible when entering the sites entrance and neither was a terms of parking sign visible, please note the defendant entered the land in the early hours of the morning. The defendant temporarily stopped, unaware of any terms of parking on this land, they had previously stopped on a number of occurrences prior to these days in question. IPC code of practice states

8.1 The Operator must have clear signage located on the Private Land to confirm the Terms and Conditions in place.

8.2 Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in Schedule 1.

3.2 The defendant then repeated the same actions the following day xx/xx/xxxx still not aware of the parking conditions the claimant is claiming, consequently receiving 2 PCN’s.

4.1. The timestamps on the images of the defendant’s vehicle stopped do not exceed 5 minutes, The claimant has no evidence of the timing the defendant entered the land nor when they left. IPC Code of practice referencing consideration and grace periods states:

“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.”

4.2. If the claimant is unaware of the entry or exit times of the defendant what reasonable cause does the claimant have to believe a parking charge is due as per IPC code of practice below  

14.5 Where CCTV and/or ANPR technology is used appropriate checks must be carried out to ensure Parking Charges are only issued where there is Reasonable Cause to believe a Parking Charge is due before issuing a Postal Notification. Operators must keep a record identifying the individual who completed the quality check.

B789

That is not from a template defence. Use the template and just change paras #2 and #3.