County Court claim received from Gladstone courtesy of District enforcement limited

Coupon-mad

It's fine as long as you are slotting it into the Template Defence (it is up to date. It's a 'sticky' advice thread).

But I thought you were going to quote the IPC CoP clause about the requirement for extra signs where the restrictions are new or significantly change at a site?

ForeverEvan

On my word doc I have got the whole thing but I didnt see the point of sharing the whole thing seems as you guys already know what the rest says.

But I thought you were going to quote the IPC CoP clause about the requirement for extra signs where the restrictions are new or significantly change at a site?

I am not certain of when or how long these signs have been up so I didn't want to include something they may be able discredit my defence with.
If you think I should add it anyway I will but I can't find any info of when they started managing the site.

Umkomaas

ForeverEvan said:

On my word doc I have got the whole thing but I didnt see the point of sharing the whole thing seems as you guys already know what the rest says.

But I thought you were going to quote the IPC CoP clause about the requirement for extra signs where the restrictions are new or significantly change at a site?

I am not certain of when or how long these signs have been up so I didn't want to include something they may be able discredit my defence with.
If you think I should add it anyway I will but I can't find any info of when they started managing the site.

Put it in. It will give their court representative (a local rent-by-the-hour jobbing legal advocate) a tough time in refuting it as he/she will have no idea about the car park or its history. In fact, he/she will only have received the trial bundle the night before.  They are almost always totally ill-prepared to deal with the detail. 

ForeverEvan

Amended addition to defence - to be added into the rest of the template off the sticky.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.

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. Should a site change terms and conditions please see IPC code of practice schedule 1 – signage below

“Changes in Operator’s Terms and Conditions 

Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the Car Park and which materially affects the Motorist the Operator should place additional (temporary) notices at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur Parking Charges. 30 Notices should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required and left in place for an appropriate period”.

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. 

Coupon-mad

That's better.  You've used the IPC CoP well.

Change this:

"the private land the claimant manages,"

to

'the location'

1505grandad

Pedantic mode but just checking  -  what was the date of the parking event?

ForeverEvan

It was towards the end of last year

Le_Kirk

ForeverEvan said:

It was towards the end of last year

Very detailed!  The reason for asking is so that the regulars can calculate things like POFA compliance!

ForeverEvan

If you need a little more detail It was November last year, was just conscious about revealing exact dates that's all

Umkomaas

ForeverEvan said:

If you need a little more detail It was November last year, was just conscious about revealing exact dates that's all

Why?  Exact dates are precisely what drives liability (or not) under PoFA.

There are no men in black suits!