PARKING CHARGE NOTICE CLAIM FORM PLEASE HELP

davidjwalk

Hello, I parked at a betting shop on 11/01/23 and forgot to enter my vehicle registration details inside the building, the signage stipulates this must be done within 10 minutes to be allocated 3 hours free parking. I received a PCN but discarded it and all future correspondence on the advice of friends. I then received a claim form where the costs are now being pursued in court. I’ve made an acknowledgment of service and now need to send in my defence but unsure what to say as I may have breached the terms stipulated on the signage. Please can someone help me 

davidjwalk

From these pictures you can see the displayed signage and the parking bays 

Fruitcake

Plan A is to complain to the betting shop manager/owner and it is never too late to do so. If they fail to get it cancelled, take your business elsewhere.

The advice to ignore a PCN has not been given here since the law changed in 2012. You were given terrible advice, and should have researched the subject yourself. Perhaps you could ask your friends to chip in if you lose.

What was the date of issue of the claim form?
Upon what date did you complete the AoS.

Read the guide to court written by bargepole that you will find in the second post of the NEWBIES along with the template defence sticky Announcement that includes a twelve step guide.

Post (only) the parts of the defence template that you intend to change here for review. This would normally be paragraphs 2 and 3.
One of your defence points will be inadequate signage since it would often be hidden by parked vehicles, and is unreadable at a car length.

I suggest you take photos of the site and signage when you return to complain. You can probably manage to get at least one photo' where the main sign is completely hidden.

davidjwalk

You’re right and I apologise for my complacency in this matter and thank you wholeheartedly for your reply. I’m going to the betting shop now to complain to the manager as I only went into the shop for some advice and ended up chatting to someone for about 20 minutes. The issue date on the claim form is 13 OCT 2023 and AoS was completed on 30 OCT 2023

My rough defence draft is as follows; 

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 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 is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

3. The defendant parked in a designated parking bay to enter the premises for general advice and spent roughly 20 minutes conversing with a friend also inside the premises. The defendant was aware that registration details of the vehicle were to be entered upon arrival and left without doing so.

davidjwalk

Sorry that should of said wasn’t aware 

davidjwalk

Also with it being January it would of been far too dark to see the signage, would this suffice as a possible defence as the signage is not lit up at night 

Le_Kirk

davidjwalk said:

Sorry that should of have said wasn’t aware 

davidjwalk said:

Also with it being January it would of have been far too dark to see the signage, would this suffice as a possible defence as the signage is not lit up at night 

If you are sending legal documents to a court or legal admin centre, you need to make sure to use English spelling and grammar.  On the claim form, are the particulars of claim fully explained or do they just state "breached terms of contract" or similar?  If they are sparse then you can use the defence written by @hharry100

davidjwalk

@Le_Kirk  Okay sorry and thank you for the advice, yes the POC are the exact same that @hharry100 had been given. Can I use his exact defence but slightly adapted for my situation and the reasons for parking there?

KeithP

davidjwalk said:

The issue date on the claim form is 13 OCT 2023 and AoS was completed on 30 OCT 2023.

With a Claim Issue Date of 13rd October, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 15th November 2023 to file a Defence.

That's just two days away but plenty of time to produce a Defence.
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'.

davidjwalk

@Le_Kirk @Fruitcake

Defence 

 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').

1. The facts 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 appears 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 is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  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 authority.

3. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that '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 in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

4. The Defendant vaguely remembers on the day in question that he had gone to Dave Pluck Birkdale during evening hours to make general enquires inside the premises. Upon leaving the small and dimly-lit car park I returned to my car and drove home. Sometime later I received a PCN (Parking Charge Notice) in the post. 

5. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close fo where he had parked his vehicle, showing the terms and conditions for use, the Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied on the car park due to obscure signage and no suitable lighting at night during operating hours. The small signage was not suitable to alert motorists. Due to the age of the alleged breach of contact which is nearly 12 months old the Defendant is unable to recall the exact reason for the PCN. 

6.  The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

davidjwalk

I’ve just realised in paragraph 4 that I’ve used first-person wording and this will be changed, my apologies