County Court Claim for parking outside Debenhams - Parking Control Management

Johnersh

The statement from C on here omits the contract.

AEW UK bought the site in 2020 (according to Google). They are the land owner. But who is the signatory to the contract? Is that on behalf of Debenhams who were, presumably, still tenant till they went under?

If so, has C adduced any evidence that the administrator renewed the contracts? By definition the company in administration was no longer able to have the authority to enter into contracts, renew them etc. I'd be surprised if the PPC still had authority to issue proceedings, but it's possible...

qwertyoffice

Thank you, is this ok please?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nGxLQdChkT3_0NVtNqRia5E9p9gwBKwMfwFawFegvz0/edit?usp=sharing

@Coupon-mad I left off your point (d) because the actual date of the PCN was 07/03/20 when Debenhams was still trading, as this is a separate but identical PCN to one I first posted - sorry for the confusion. 

Coupon-mad

Don't put that you LEFT your vehicle!  Say that you briefly got out.

Your exhibit numbers need re-sorting now. You don't start with Exhibit 5 being the first one mentioned. You re-number them sequentially, to match when they are mentioned in the WS.

And obviously you weren't meant to leave this as 'paragraph x':

"As is explained in more detail in paragraph x below"

1505grandad

Just checking:-

"Two persuasive claim Appeal cases - Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande both confirm that poorly pleaded parking claims such as this should be struck out (see both transcripts in Exhibit xx-05). "

You will be adding the Akande case as at the moment only the Chan case is exhibited

Coupon-mad

Odd. They are both in the judgments link.

qwertyoffice

Ok thank you I have made them changes.
So do I email the WS to the same email address as the defence (claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk)?

And I need to email it to Gladstones (enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk)

qwertyoffice

Ignore my post above, I have emailed my WS to Romford County Court directly after reading the hearing document they sent me. 

Also emailed the WS to Gladstones at there general email address copied above

qwertyoffice

I have just received this from Gladstones, should I be concerned please?  I am in court with this next week. 

This is a low value claim, limited to no more than £320.00 which arose as a result of unpaid Parking Charge Notice

(PCN) issued to the Defendant by the Claimant for a parking contravention which occurred on private land managed

by the Claimant.

The Defendant’s witness statement

1. The statement provided by the Defendant appears to be duplicate of their original defence, save for

attaching case law and providing a sequence of events on the date of contravention. The Claimant submits

that for the most part, the statement and case law provided can be found on the internet and is a copy and

paste response to the Claim. It is highly unlikely that the Defendant would have any knowledge with respect

to the case law, points in law and the complexities in their writing when questioned about the matter, it is

therefore denied in its entirety.

2. The Defendant’s position with respect to signage is denied. There are numerous signs located at the site to

inform motorists that the land is private and further, subject to terms and conditions. The Claimant rejects

any arguments that the Defendant did not see any signage however, without concession; if they were not

seen, they ought to have been.

3. Whilst the Defendant has provided the set of circumstances that lead to the PCN being issued, this does not

absolve them of liability with respect to incurring the PCN in the first instance. The Vehicle was observed

to have been parked in breach of the terms and conditions applicable at the site and therefore, the OPCN

was issued accordingly. The acknowledged that they had seen the sign and decided to leave, however the

breach had already occurred given that the vehicle was observed to be parked without the correct permit.

Costs

1. The costs sought by the Defendant is exaggerated, excessive and disproportionate in view of the value of the

claim. The Defendant claims £95.00 for an alleged loss of earnings attending the hearing. The Defendant has

failed to provide any evidence which demonstrates their earnings, and further that the sum sought is a justified

amount, given that the matter is set down for a one hour hearing.

2. Whilst the Defendant seeks £76.00 for research, preparation and drafting of documents (claiming 4 hours has

been spent of this), their position is denied. The time and therefore sum sought is exaggerated, and my

Company would like the Court to note that ironically the Defendant (for the most part) is using a

generic defence template for their witness statement which can be found on the internet and it is

highly doubtful that the Defendant would understand the complexities of all the references to the

Civil Procedure Rules, the requirements in the Protection and Freedoms Act (POFA) and in

established case law, which is often the case when a Defendant is questioned about such references

at Court. Therefore, everything that the Defendant has outlined is not accepted and denied by my

Company.

3. The sum sought for stationary, printing and postage costs are denied as the Defendant has served an

electronic copy of their statement to the Claimant, therefore they have not suffered any of these

costs, and certainly have not provided any evidence to substantiate their claim.

Coupon-mad

No.

Nothing has changed.

KeithP

Gladstones assert:
It is highly unlikely that the Defendant would have any knowledge with respect to the case law, points in law and the complexities in their writing when questioned about the matter, it is therefore denied in its entirety.

I would be objecting strongly to that sentence.

The Claimant appears to be saying that 'the matter' is 'denied in its entirety' simply because they think that the Defendant might not understand 'the case law, points in law and the complexities'.

Can one deduce from that, that if the Claimant thought that the Defendant did understand what's happening, then the Claimant wouldn't dare 'deny the matter in its entirety'?

At best, their use of the word 'therefore' is misplaced.