NPM Northampton - PCN for staying in car for 4 minutes

loftytop15

Is it okay that the skeleton argument only contains Chan and Akande transcripts - or should it contain more information (anything from my defence?)

Coupon-mad

I'd include a link to the IPC CoP (the one that applied in Summer 2023, NOT the 2024 Code) sections about entrance signs and consideration periods. Pretty sure it states drivers must be on notice at the entrance and then also afforded a reasonable time to read signs and decide whether to accept the contract on the sign, or leave.

1505grandad

"........... entered an NPM ran car park in northampton on 05/08/2023 to check............................."

If you want to check the IPC CoP version 8  -  the version relevant to your parking event  -  see the following:-

https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/Code_of_Practice_v8.pdf

loftytop15

@Coupon-mad
When you say "attaching the transcripts" do you mean download the dropbox links of Chan and Akande and sending them along with the skeleton argument? 
And then inserting paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 into my skeleton argument from this thread?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81199155/#Comment_81199155

Coupon-mad

Yep. Either take a paper copy of the skelly & actual printouts of Chan & Akande to the local court, or email it (or both).

cc in Gladstones. 

loftytop15

in the IPC code of practice it 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.
13.2 Before a Parking Charge is issued Motorists must be allowed a Grace Period save and except when 13.3 is applicable. A Grace Period is a 10 minute period at the end of a Permitted Period of Parking.
13.3 A Grace Period is not required when the Permitted Period of Parking does not exceed 1 hour providing that the signage on the site makes it clear to the Motorist, in a prominent font, that no Grace Period applies on that land.

Should i just omit 13.3? I did not know a grace period could be omitted 

loftytop15

Or should i omit all of this about grace periods - it seems to state here it is purely at the end of the parking contract, rather than a consideration period 

Coupon-mad

It is so appalling, I'd leave it out.  I forgot how bad it was! 

loftytop15

I've added 13.1....after the headers and such, this is my current skeleton argument (the numbers mess up when pasting into here)

Is there anything else I should add?

1. Preliminary matter: The Defendant denies the Claimant’s claim and believes the claim should be struck out as there was no parking event, and therefore I did not enter into a parking contract.

1. Supplied in the IPC Code of Practice v8, which was enforced during August 2023 and therefore the contravention date, Section 8.1 reads “The Operator must have clear signage located on the Private Land to confirm the Terms and Conditions in place”.

1. As you can see from Exhibit B and C as part of my witness statement (Photos from outside of the car park), there was no clear signage from outside the car park to indicate venturing into it would be private land 

2. Also supplied in the IPC Code of Practice v8, Section 13.1 reads: “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”

1. After realising I was on private land, I promptly left the car park

1. The Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authorities:

1. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

1. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage

1. Links to the Chan and Akande cases here that will be sent as part of my Skeleton argument via email

Coupon-mad

Just copy the Chan & Akande wording you should have used in defence.

Not the IPC CoP. Remove it.

Nothing in the first person.

You can't have submissions like this in a skelly:

1. After realising I was on private land, I promptly left the car park