Defence help pleaseeee

LuckieDuckie1979

Hi all,
I am VERY new to this as you will likely tell and previously just paid parking fines due to fear of repercussions. 
I have received a court letter and have read through all of the NEWBIES thread at least three times so I apologise in advance if I do ask something already mentioned in the thread.
I have completed the MCOL and the extension but I was on holiday at the time of the letter being received so this has not left me with long to complete my defence even after the extension of time..
I have copied the defence template and attempted to write section 2 & 3. Section 2 I have stated that I am unaware whether I was the driver at the time due to previously transferring liability of parking tickets and am unable to confirm whether this is for one of those (SAR has been made but I have yet to receive this).
Section 3 I have stated: 
The defendant denies knowledge of the driver at the time of the incident. No letters prior to this were received by the defendant and this can be evidenced by multiple previous complaints to the Royal Mail regarding the non-delivery of mail with the complaint reference numbers 1-915340**** dated **/**/2023, 1-927466**** dated **/**/2023, and 1-927336**** dated **/**/2023. The defendant has used the car park named previously but cannot confirm nor deny the allegation due to the length of time passed. The defendant’s knowledge of the car park named is that it is poorly lit due to being underground and is known to be a free car park for four hours and that the ticket machine was often broken. If the defendant is proved to be the driver they dispute that they would of exceeded the four hour limit.

Is this by any means acceptable?
Also do i need to try and evidence previous cases won by defendants on similar court cases as i have yet to find any on here (i have tried to look).
The complaint references are genuine and were for not receiving mail on multiple occasions and I have used the car park previously but only used it in order to go to a particular shop which i would attend for around 30 minutes at a time.

I thank you in advance for any assistance/advice that anyone provides.

Many thanks!!

Coupon-mad

That's really good. No need to find other cases.

Add this fact as an extra para 4 and re-number the rest of the template:

4.  The Defendant has used the car park previously but only used it in order to go to a particular small shop for up to 30 minutes at a time.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that this allegation was not based erroneously on what the Government (in the new statutory Code of Practice) call a typical ANPR 'double dip' data error.  These are known to be a common flaw of ANPR systems and 'double dip' PCNs are caused by a lack of human checks to a avoid wrongful automatic PCN issuance based on images taken of two short visits on the same day.  To disprove this likely scenario at this shop, the Claimant must show the court and Defendant, evidence of ALL captures of this vehicle (including partial and/or 'orphan' images) in the time period, not just the 'first in/last out' captures


And change this:

The defendant denies knowledge of the driver at the time of the incident.

to this:

The Defendant denies knowledge of the driver and of the incident.

YankeeBrit

What is the "issue date" on your claim? What date did you file your AoS? We require this information in order to figure out exactly by what date your defence needs to be filed.

Which PPC? Which, if any, solicitor? Did you appeal at all? If so, which appeal, to the PPC or their "IAS"? Was the PCN PoFA compliant? If not, has the driver's identity been revealed at any stage?

Le_Kirk

LuckieDuckie1979 said:

If the defendant is proved to be the driver they dispute that they would of would have exceeded the four hour limit.

Is this by any means acceptable?
Also do i need to try and evidence previous cases won by defendants on similar court cases as i have yet to find any on here (i have tried to look).
The complaint references are genuine and were for not receiving mail on multiple occasions and I have used the car park previously but only used it in order to go to a particular shop which i would attend for around 30 minutes at a time.

With a vote of thanks from @Coupon-mad I would have no hesitation in using that along with the extra that she advised you to add.  However, I would correct this horrendous grammatical error!

LuckieDuckie1979

Coupon-mad said:

That's really good. No need to find other cases.

Add this fact as an extra para 4 and re-number the rest of the template:

4.  The Defendant has used the car park previously but only used it in order to go to a particular small shop for up to 30 minutes at a time.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that this allegation was not based erroneously on what the Government (in the new statutory Code of Practice) call a typical ANPR 'double dip' data error.  These are known to be a common flaw of ANPR systems and 'double dip' PCNs are caused by a lack of human checks to a avoid wrongful automatic PCN issuance based on images taken of two short visits on the same day.  To disprove this likely scenario at this shop, the Claimant must show the court and Defendant, evidence of ALL captures of this vehicle (including partial and/or 'orphan' images) in the time period, not just the 'first in/last out' captures


And change this:

The defendant denies knowledge of the driver at the time of the incident.

to this:

The Defendant denies knowledge of the driver and of the incident.

Thank you so much this is very helpful. The carpark is not ANPR it is a pay and display that allows 4 hours free stay. Should I still include this paragraph?

LuckieDuckie1979

YankeeBrit said:

What is the "issue date" on your claim? What date did you file your AoS? We require this information in order to figure out exactly by what date your defence needs to be filed.

Which PPC? Which, if any, solicitor? Did you appeal at all? If so, which appeal, to the PPC or their "IAS"? Was the PCN PoFA compliant? If not, has the driver's identity been revealed at any stage?

The car park is CPM LTD and are using Gladstones Solicitors. This has not been appealed as I didn’t receive any letters prior to the court claim form so I also wouldn’t know whether the PCN is PoFA compliant.
the issue date is 11th July and the AoS was completed on the 24th. 

Coupon-mad

LuckieDuckie1979 said:

Coupon-mad said:

That's really good. No need to find other cases.

Add this fact as an extra para 4 and re-number the rest of the template:

4.  The Defendant has used the car park previously but only used it in order to go to a particular small shop for up to 30 minutes at a time.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that this allegation was not based erroneously on what the Government (in the new statutory Code of Practice) call a typical ANPR 'double dip' data error.  These are known to be a common flaw of ANPR systems and 'double dip' PCNs are caused by a lack of human checks to a avoid wrongful automatic PCN issuance based on images taken of two short visits on the same day.  To disprove this likely scenario at this shop, the Claimant must show the court and Defendant, evidence of ALL captures of this vehicle (including partial and/or 'orphan' images) in the time period, not just the 'first in/last out' captures


And change this:

The defendant denies knowledge of the driver at the time of the incident.

to this:

The Defendant denies knowledge of the driver and of the incident.

Thank you so much this is very helpful. The carpark is not ANPR it is a pay and display that allows 4 hours free stay. Should I still include this paragraph?

Hmmm...are you sure?

4 hours free stay yet it's pay and display, what do you mean? And there must be cameras... a 4 hour limit can't be monitored on foot.

Please show us the PCN front page and only redact your name & address, PCN ref and your VRM.  If you don't have the PCN please show the place with a link to Google Streetview.

LuckieDuckie1979

Coupon-mad said:

LuckieDuckie1979 said:

Coupon-mad said:

That's really good. No need to find other cases.

Add this fact as an extra para 4 and re-number the rest of the template:

4.  The Defendant has used the car park previously but only used it in order to go to a particular small shop for up to 30 minutes at a time.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that this allegation was not based erroneously on what the Government (in the new statutory Code of Practice) call a typical ANPR 'double dip' data error.  These are known to be a common flaw of ANPR systems and 'double dip' PCNs are caused by a lack of human checks to a avoid wrongful automatic PCN issuance based on images taken of two short visits on the same day.  To disprove this likely scenario at this shop, the Claimant must show the court and Defendant, evidence of ALL captures of this vehicle (including partial and/or 'orphan' images) in the time period, not just the 'first in/last out' captures


And change this:

The defendant denies knowledge of the driver at the time of the incident.

to this:

The Defendant denies knowledge of the driver and of the incident.

Thank you so much this is very helpful. The carpark is not ANPR it is a pay and display that allows 4 hours free stay. Should I still include this paragraph?

Hmmm...are you sure?

4 hours free stay yet it's pay and display, what do you mean? And there must be cameras... a 4 hour limit can't be monitored on foot.

Please show us the PCN front page and only redact your name & address, PCN ref and your VRM.  If you don't have the PCN please show the place with a link to Google Streetview.

The ticket machine dispenses a ticket with 4 hours already allocated on it and if you wish to stay longer you then you have to pay. 

This is the carpark. It has an attendant that takes the details of the car and a picture and PCN are then issues through the post but I never received one.

Coupon-mad

Really odd.  But I think leave it in with these additions and make it 4 extra paragraphs:

4.  The Defendant and insured drivers in the family have used the car park previously but only used it in order to go to a particular small shop for up to 30 minutes at a time.  It is quite likely that there were two drivers on two separate visits, if this Claimant is alleging overstay of the advertised 'free 4 hours', which is impossible to glean from the woefully inadequate POC.

5.  If the charge is for something else other than an 'overstay' allegation, the Defendant thinks it reasonable that they are offered the right to amend this defence or use the Witness Statement stage to expand this defence and respond to any further and better particulars or any Reply to Defence that might subsequently arrive.

6.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that this allegation was not based erroneously on what the Government (in the new statutory Code of Practice) call a typical ANPR 'double dip' data error.  These are known to be a common flaw of ANPR systems and 'double dip' PCNs are caused by a lack of human checks to a avoid wrongful automatic PCN issuance based on images taken of two short visits on the same day.  To disprove this likely scenario at this shop, the Claimant must show the court and Defendant, evidence of ALL captures of this vehicle (including partial and/or 'orphan' images) in the time period, not just the 'first in/last out' captures if this was enforced remotely.

7.  The Defendant knows that there is a site parking operative who attends on foot, but has had to guess that images were taken by some sort of camera (maybe a hand-held device or an ordinary phone) and that - if the allegation is overstay - this was two visits, because the car would never have stayed for over four hours.  The Defendant has never received a PCN or any photographic evidence at all, and will require all images and proof of the purported breach and all timings.  Further, if the PCN was generated as a result of images taken by an on-site operative or self-ticketer, these are notoriously unreliable and imprinted timings on phone photos are editable, and have been altered by rogue ticketers in recent years.  As such, the Defendant will expect the site operative to provide a Witness Statement and attend the hearing to be questioned because this whole claim is generic and impossible to fathom what it is about.  This case is yet more evidence of what MPs call the 'outrageous scam' of private parking charges and the Defendant challenges and disputes the timings, the clarity of the signs and lines and every aspect of the claim.

KeithP

LuckieDuckie1979 said:

the issue date is 11th July and the AoS was completed on the 24th. 

With a Claim Issue Date of 11th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 14th August 2023 to file your Defence.

That's today.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline 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

LuckieDuckie1979 said:

YankeeBrit said:

What is the "issue date" on your claim? What date did you file your AoS? We require this information in order to figure out exactly by what date your defence needs to be filed.

Which PPC? Which, if any, solicitor? Did you appeal at all? If so, which appeal, to the PPC or their "IAS"? Was the PCN PoFA compliant? If not, has the driver's identity been revealed at any stage?

The car park is CPM LTD and are using Gladstones Solicitors. This has not been appealed as I didn’t receive any letters prior to the court claim form so I also wouldn’t know whether the PCN is PoFA compliant.
the issue date is 11th July and the AoS was completed on the 24th. 

You mean UK Car Park Management Ltd?

If they have added 10.25% interest, add this too and renumber the rest:

8.  Whatever the allegation turns out to be, it must be common ground that the terms have been complied with or substantially complied with, and the Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen.  The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty (not saved by the ParkingEye v Beavis case, which is fully distinguished).  In addition to the fact that the sum claimed under purported 'contract' is disproportionately exaggerated, additionally the interest is inflated in two ways:

(i).  Interest appears to be miscalculated on the whole enhanced sum from day one as if £160 or £170 was 'overdue' on the day of parking;

(ii). Gladstones have applied the wrong interest rate of 10.25% which they appear to have made up.  The highest rate allowed in civil claims (only at the discretion of courts) is 8%. I have discovered from research that this legal representative roboclaim firm (connected to the IPC trade body) always adds 10.25% interest and are highly likely to be one of the top five 'bulk parking case litigators' shown in the Government's analysis, linked elsewhere in this statement.  Gladstones indisputably issue tens of thousands of inflated parking claims every year, all of which have the wrong interest rate (a deplorable 10.25%)  and the unconscionably enhanced £60 or £70 (per PCN) which can add hundreds to some claims.  Given that the MoJ's quarterly statistics show that 90% of small claims go to default CCJs, this is clearly an abuse, and it appears to be for the profit of Gladstones and nothing to do with the Claimant's alleged £100 PCN.  I hope the Judge addresses this in the final judgment, at the very least to warn or sanction Gladstones as the court sees fit.