PCN at my place of residence in 2017!

NGSomebody

The 'old' and the new signs. 

NGSomebody

'Old' on the left; 'new' on the right.

Coupon-mad

They contradict each other and the PCM terms are unreadable.

A CCC was sent to my former address despite me being on the electoral register in my new address. 

I paid £275 to apply for a set aside

Just before the set aside hearing, the Claimant agreed to the set aside. The cost session lasted for barely 5 minutes. I was asked to submit my defence by the 26th (14 days).

Did you manage to add everything I suggested to your Defence and WS bundle?

Show us your updated drafts this weekend.

NGSomebody

Thanks @Coupon-mad. 

I am thinking to hand deliver the pack to the court on Monday, 26/06/2023 before/by 10am.

I could explore the contradiction angle too. How do I approach that?

It might be a stupid question, but do I need to complete and add an N9B form to it? 

Re 'unreadability', I think they might argue that some other signs are at a lower angle. I try will check their positioning again today.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Re the White Book annotation, I noticed it was already included in the body of Defence on the last paragraph as follows:

29.  Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from this industry) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."   

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I only pasted the excerpt above as I am being mindful not to paste everything on the board as per forum rules. But if you think it is okay, I will gladly do so.

Below is my WS as currently is:

1. I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made.

2. I resided at XXX, where the purported parking event took place. This address is a maisonette, situated in a block of flats with parking spaces both in front of the shops as well as the back of the building (see Exhibits 001, 002 and 003).

3. Located right next to the XXX Underground Station and right from the start of my tenancy at the address, there had always been “No Parking – Private Land” signs positioned around the space to discourage non-tenants from parking their vehicles before going on the train.

Exhibit 004 shows one of the two remaining signs from start of tenancy. Exhibit 005 shows the other tenancy-inception sign on the left of the frame with a new sign from an enforcement company on the right (photos taken on 22/6/23).

4. I had lived at this address since December 2014, and had always parked my vehicle in the (then unmarked) space behind the block.

5. Tenants had never been restricted from parking their vehicles at the address (see Exhibit 006). Indeed, part of the selling points by the then property agents to potential renters including me, had always included ample parking space as well as proximity to the train station. No change to this right to park the vehicle where I lived was communicated by the landlord.

6. On 08/02/2017, the vehicle was SORN’ed as it had developed a timing belt problem – see Exhibit 007. It was then kept in the compound while a plan to fix it was being put in place, only delayed by the availability of money.

7. In June 2017, I returned from work to find parking restriction signs bearing the ‘Spring Parking’ logo installed at the location. No communication came from our landlord. Exhibits 005 and 008 – photographs taken on 22/06/2023 – however suggest that the sign has been changed as it now shows a PCM logo.

8. In July, the SORN’ed car was ticketed with the following PCN numbers – 309544 and 309570. I quickly got in contact with the issuer - Spring Parking, who insisted they were instructed by the landlord. They then also announced that the restrictions indicated on the signs were also targeted at tenants. Faced with a possible abdication of their contractual responsibility, I contacted the landlord who then also shockingly announced that tenants were now also targeted by the restrictions.

9. I continued to seek legality and reason with the landlord and Claimant, stating why the approach to abruptly deny tenants’ pre-existing car parking rights was inappropriate, while also trying to persuade the landlord to do the right thing. I anxiously tried to convince the Claimant of the need to recognize the primacy of the contract in a property I had lived in for just under three years and hold action until I (and other tenants) reach an agreement with the landlord (see Exhibit 010).

10. On 19/08/2017, the Claimant cancelled both tickets – see Exhibit 011. I was grateful and hopeful that the matter was arriving at a fair and just conclusion for tenants.

11. On 24/11/2017, the car was stolen from the (by then gated) compound along with two other cars. I promptly reported the theft to the police after having contacted the Claimant and landlord about its whereabouts, to no success. While the Claimant denied taking the car (see Exhibit 012), they never mentioned they had issued a ticket on the car earlier on, as is known now. I have still not seen any confirmation of such PCN even up till now.

12. In October 2022, I was shocked to see a debt notification added to my credit file after having moved to a new address. I also then found out the particulars of the issue through the County Court Business Centre – a claim made by Spring Parking on the very car I lost almost five years earlier! The following PCN details were gleaned from the court email: 23/10/2017 – 912302266; 22/11/2017 – 912303541; 25/10/2017 – 912302820 (see Exhibit 013). The original claim had been erroneously sent to the wrong address by the Claimant, enabling a non-deserved default judgment. I have had to seek a set aside to this judgment, in order to get to this point.

13. It is significant to note that the car was already parked and SORNed long before the new signs went up (unannounced) and no communications  were sent to residents to draw their attention to any change, let alone seek consensus to accept such contract-breaching and onerous new terms – terms which when foisted upon residents, would clearly have the unsolicited and unwelcome effect of interfering with existing rights/grants.

 

Statement of truth:

I believe that the facts stated....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below is the main body of the Cost Schedule - I think I need to do something to it, but can't seem to figure out what:

COSTS SCHEDULE

 

1.               The Judge ordered that my N244 costs be 'reserved'. These costs were ultimately not just caused by Spring Parking not bothering to do a 28 pence 'soft trace' - thereby breaching even the BPA’s Code of Practice, but also their refusal to set aside the judgement upon the recognition of their mistake as well as receipt of evidence as they requested.

 

This cost amounts to £275.

 

2.               Researching and preparing the set aside application and defence for claims that should not have been made in the first place, came about at a cost - £19 per hour multiplied by 8 hours.

 

This cost amounts to £152.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I then added a List of Exhibits in a table:

Exhibit 001

Driving licence showing my address

Exhibit 002

Parking space at the back of the building

Exhibit 003

Parking space in front of the building

Exhibit 004

Initial sign at the start of the tenancy – photo taken on 22/06/2023

Exhibit 005

Initial sign at the start of the tenancy on the left; new sign from enforcement company on the right – photo taken on 22/06/2023

Exhibit 006

Vehicle – among others parked at the back building space – photo taken years ago. Please note the unmarked terrain.

Exhibit 007

Proof of SORN

Exhibit 008

Existing sign from parking company – photo taken on 22/06/2023

Exhibit 010

Communication between me and Spring Parking before PCN cancellations

Exhibit 011

Email confirmation of PCNs cancellation

Exhibit 012

Email indicating Claimant were unaware of car whereabout.

Exhibit 013

Court particulars detailing PCN; please note the Claimant’s attempt to mislead the court by stating that the Defendant ‘agreed to pay’ when he was factually unaware of the existence of the PCN.

Coupon-mad

The White Book point is in the template defence as you say, but I'd move that and the rest of the section about costs into your costs assessment.  Might make it 2 pages but it is better in the costs assessment.

I only put it in the Template Defence to give defendants a foot in the door to costs if a PPC discontinues an ordinary defended claim.

In your case you are submitting a whole bundle in one go so you may as well have the right things in the right places.

That sign is PCM (different company) not Spring Parking. Not useful to you. Were you sent any pics of the Spring Parking sign?  

NGSomebody

Okay, I will move them to the Cost doc. 

No, they did not send me any pic of the Spring Parking sign. 

Coupon-mad

So I would say that in your WS, that you've not been furnished with any photo of the alleged contract you are accused of breaching, and Spring Parking were swiftly removed from the site which now has a different parking firm sign. So you are none the wiser, but deny any contractual agreement or breach.

NGSomebody

Okay. Thanks, @Coupon-mad. I will add those. 
Do you think I should include an N9B form? Does it matter?

Coupon-mad

No form goes with a WS.

No idea what form that is.

Le_Kirk

N9B is a defence and counterclaim form for a specified amount but, as you say, @Coupon-mad, the OP is well past that stage.