PCN LBC - Need help

1505grandad

Le_Kirk said:

If necessary (by that I mean if the claimant decides to pursue the case to court) you can add CEL v Chan to your witness statement.

Reminding you of the above.

BumpyC

I'm not sure if CEL v Chan is relevant in my case? The terms are clearly stated as to how the contract was breached in the PCN

KeithP

BumpyC said:

I'm not sure if CEL v Chan is relevant in my case? The terms are clearly stated as to how the contract was breached in the PCN

The 'terms are clearly stated' where? In the Particulars of Claim on the Claim Form?
If the PoCs don't clearly state the breach, then CEL v Chan is relevant.
Have you, or can you, show us the PoCs, with personal identifiers obliterated of course.

Coupon-mad

BumpyC said:

I'm not sure if CEL v Chan is relevant in my case? The terms are clearly stated as to how the contract was breached in the PCN

PCN is irrelevant.

The Template Defence clearly says it's a point solely about the POC.

BumpyC

okay the POC states:
The claim is for a breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. The Defendants vehicle , was identified in the 'location' on 'date' in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Parked without purchasing a ticket for VRM. At all material times the defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.

Coupon-mad

BumpyC said:

I'm not sure if CEL v Chan is relevant in my case? The terms are clearly stated as to how the contract was breached 

Agreed, now we've seen the POC.

This is why I kept the Template Defence as it was ('Chan-free') so people don't have to change it.

BumpyC

I am still arguing Parking Eye v Beavis as this is the Excel Limited parking sign, it's unclear and hard to read when driving - would you agree?

Coupon-mad

We agree: it is cluttered. Takes ages to read.

The Template Defence already covers that.  You only need to add your facts, not Beavis, which is already stated lower down.

Castle

Not only is the sign cluttered it actually tells the driver to refer to the Terms and conditions signs at the "Pay meter(s)". So, the question is:-
Is the sign offering a contract or are the signs at the pay meters showing the actual offer?

BumpyC

oh okay, so i don't need to include anything that is already covered by the defence letter?
If that's the case then this is what i have for my witness statement:

Witness Statement of Defendant

 

 

1. I am XXXX of XXXX, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

 

2. In my statement, I shall refer to exhibits (XXX) within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

 

Facts and Sequence of events

8. It is admitted that on the material dates, I was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. It is known that this vehicle entered and left the car park at the stated times.

 

9. It is also known that whilst attending this car park, the car in question broke down, and was subsequently unable to move. The clutch was stuck down, and the defendant so spent a couple of minutes trying to unstick it before calling RAC to come out and look at it. (See exhibit xx-01)

 

10. The parking sign on entry to the car park was not clearly readable as a driver, being that it is wordy and unclear, plus it is on the left side of the entrance as entering, and so it wasn’t immediately obvious that there was a timeframe for purchase of a car park ticket. However, after calling breakdown and logging the incident, a parking ticket was purchased, and the full price of the stay was paid. (See exhibit xx-02)

 

11. As soon as the RAC had been, the car left the car park immediately.

Do i need to summarise or provide any other information?