Defence review - not parking wholly in bay

baggiesingh

HI All
I have read the Newbie and Template defence guides and think I have followed the guidance and now at the point to file defence and would appreciate help in reviewing. Highlighted in bold where I've added the words 'and driver' as per the guide.
I've used the wording using the template guide, haven't included the standard text from para 4 onwards. 
Appreciate your expertise to review and advise. One other question to clarify is presumalby I don't need to scan in the N9B and send it back with the defence?

Summary

• Received PCN for not parking wholly in a bay (car overhung) end of bay as bay was too small.
• Ignored PCN as have had several others in the past and eventually the PPC give up
• received claim form from court, PoC:
• submitted AOS via MCOL
• now have until 25th Sept to submit defence which I will do by sending as a signed pdf to the email address in the guide (rang the court to confirm this was the right email address just to be sure!)

Image of alleged offence:


This is the very sporadic signage detailing the t and c's pertaining to parking in the bay


This is the actual signage that proliferates across the car park that makes no mention of the t and c's

Draft Defence

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Full name of parking firm Ltd, not the solicitor!

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Defendant named on claim (can’t be changed to driver now)                        

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

 

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case.  The POC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.

3. The Defendant’s vehicle was parked within the lines of single marked bay as was practicably possible given that the bay was only 14ft in length thus not sufficient to wholly accommodate the defendants vehicle, a normal UK car, of 16ft in length. Hence it was impossible to comply with the terms and conditions.

4. The signage depicting a breach of this condition shows a vehicle breaching the side markings of the bay but makes no reference to overhang of the end of the bay.

5. The footprint of the Defendants vehicle was parked wholly within the bay.

6. As this is not a barrier car park, traffic is continuously moving and it would be impossible, not only for the Defendant but anyone to read a small sign that is supposed to have all the prominent terms. Therefore, no contract could be formed.

7. Moreover of the signage across the carpark makes no reference to a condition of parking wholly within a bay. It would be unreasonable for the Defendant or any other patron of the car park to assume this signage is incomplete and look for signage detailing further terms and conditions.

 

 

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

Congratulations on getting this far without needing direct forum help.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

baggiesingh

Issue date is 23rd August so date of service is 28th August, I filed AoS on 5th September

baggiesingh

ps I cant find a link or search option on MCOL for claim history or , just an option to respond to a claim which I've already done.

KeithP

baggiesingh said:

ps I cant find a link or search option on MCOL for claim history or , just an option to respond to a claim which I've already done.

Once you have entered the Claim Number on MCOL you should see a screen something like this...

But no need to worry about that. You have given us enough information.

baggiesingh said:

Issue date is 23rd August so date of service is 28th August, I filed AoS on 5th September

You are right with your Defence filing deadline but there might be something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 23rd August, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 25th September 2023 to file your Defence.

That's nearly a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

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'.

baggiesingh

Thanks Keith. I’ve included my draft defence in the original post, appreciate any feedback or comments 

Le_Kirk

baggiesingh said:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case.  The POC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.

3. The Defendant’s vehicle was parked within the lines of single marked bay as far as was practicably possible given that the bay was only 14ft in length thus not sufficient to wholly accommodate the defendants vehicle, a normal UK car, of 16ft in length,. Hence hence it was impossible to comply with the terms and conditions.

4. The signage depicting a breach of this condition shows a vehicle breaching the side markings of the bay but makes no reference to overhang of the end of the bay.

5. The footprint of the Defendant's vehicle was parked wholly within the bay.

6. As this is not a barrier car park, traffic is continuously moving and it would be impossible, not only for the Defendant but anyone to read a small sign that is supposed to have all the prominent terms. Therefore, no contract could be formed.

7. Moreover of the signage across the carpark makes no None of the signage across the car park makes any reference to a condition of parking wholly within a bay. It would be unreasonable for the Defendant or any other patron of the car park to assume this signage is incomplete and look for signage detailing further terms and conditions.

Some suggestions. One of the signs you show states that it is a pay on exit car park; surely there are barriers on exit otherwise everyone would just drive out without paying!  However, it is probably irrelevant, just say it is a very busy car park with traffic continuously moving etc.  You also show a sign that clearly show you must park correctly in a bay; is that sign not in the car park then?

baggiesingh

It’s pay on exit in that you have to pay for the parking at a machine before you leave but there is no barrier (guess because they use ANPR).
The signs depicting parking in a bay are sporadic, e.g. at the entrance, by the ticket machine and a couple around the car park. In #7 I’m trying to make the point that there are far more of the other type of sign that does not reference parking in a bay and it would be reasonable to read one sign and assume there are not different signs you need to seek out, if that makes sense. I will go and do a sign count to be precise. Is the intention in #7 a point worth making in the defence?
thanks

B789

You could go back to the car park, park your large car in a bay and take photos showing that the bay is too short. That would allow you to prove that the PPC has frustrated the contract.

Coupon-mad

Every new poster seems to be missing the HHJ Murch judgment.

baggiesingh

Hi do you mean the statement in this link is relevant to my case and I should include it ?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6468243/pcn-dcb-legal/p3