PCN from PCM

RV44

Hi All,

I parked in front of my own rented residence in May 2022 and received a PCN for not displaying the permit. I am the driver as well as the registered keeper of the car. On the said date, I had recently received a permit, and the fact that I was also about to move to a different place, meant I did not affix the permit, but left the permit of the dashboard. I came back in an hour to find the PCN. I appealed to the PCN stating the reasons why I shouldn't but the response from them was very vague. 

Cut to today, after several letters from debt recovery etc, I have finally received a Claim Form. Between the first appeal and the claim form I haven't taken any action. Am i still in good place to defend this claim? Please could you help.

Thanks,

Half_way

Who's space did you park in?

is it assigned to the flat you are renting?

Did the rental agreement come with the right to park in that space?

KeithP

RV44 said:

...I have finally received a Claim Form.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

RV44

@Half_way sorry for the delayed response, it was a community parking area for residents of the community. I had a valid parking residence permit issued for the car for which the agency issuing the permit had all of the details i.e. the flat number, my tenancy agreement and my ownership record of the car.

@KeithP sorry for the delayed response. The issue date of the claim form is 18th December and I will be filing an acknowledgement of service today 2nd January. I understand I have until the 6th January for them to receive the acknowledgement. 

RV44

Half_way said:

Who's space did you park in?

is it assigned to the flat you are renting?

Did the rental agreement come with the right to park in that space?

sorry for the delayed response, it was a community parking area for residents of the community. I had a valid parking residence permit issued for the car for which the agency issuing the permit had sought all of the details i.e. the flat number, my tenancy agreement and my ownership record of the car before issuing the permit. The tenancy agreement included parking.

RV44

KeithP said:

RV44 said:

...I have finally received a Claim Form.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

sorry for the delayed response. The issue date of the claim form is 18th December and I just filled in the Acknowledgement of Service on MCOL to defend the whole claim which is for £274.88 (£100 for PCN, £70 for contractual costs, £19.88 for statutory interest, £35 court fee and £50 for legal representative's fee).

KeithP

RV44 said:

KeithP said:

RV44 said:

...I have finally received a Claim Form.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

sorry for the delayed response. The issue date of the claim form is 18th December and I just filled in the Acknowledgement of Service on MCOL to defend the whole claim which is for £274.88 (£100 for PCN, £70 for contractual costs, £19.88 for statutory interest, £35 court fee and £50 for legal representative's fee).

With a Claim Issue Date of 18th December, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 22nd January 2024 to file your Defence.

That's almost three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave 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'.

Coupon-mad

RV44 said:

Half_way said:

Who's space did you park in?

is it assigned to the flat you are renting?

Did the rental agreement come with the right to park in that space?

sorry for the delayed response, it was a community parking area for residents of the community. I had a valid parking residence permit issued for the car for which the agency issuing the permit had sought all of the details i.e. the flat number, my tenancy agreement and my ownership record of the car before issuing the permit. The tenancy agreement included parking.

See the residential defence just posted on another thread.

RV44

Hi @Coupon-mad and @KeithP

I have followed multiple threads on drafting a defence. While I have copied much of the defence from other posts and intend to use the boilerplate defence (thanks to all the forum users), I wanted to bring to your attention the first part of the defence for review, especially paragraphs 6,7 and 8 below. I am mentioning the parking permit in para 6 as I did apply and obtain them, but wanted to point out that I did so as not to be bothered/harassed by the PPC. I also wanted to raise a point that the PPC were fully aware of all the facts and that I had the right to park before issuing me with a PCN (I'm not sure if I should raise this). I also want to draw your attention to 8.1 to see if my obtaining the parking permit was entering into a contract with the PPC.

Thanks,

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 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.  It is admitted that on 22nd of May 2022 the Defendant's vehicle was almost certainly parked at [location] because this was the defendant’s home, where they were de facto authorised to park a roadworthy vehicle.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

4. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose leaseholder agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant parking area, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle. A copy of the leasehold agreement will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

5. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.6. It is admitted that the Defendant had successfully obtained a ‘Parking Permit’ from the Claimant with effect from the 1st of March 2022. The Defendant applied and obtained a parking permit from the Claimant in order not to suffer harassment from the Claimants or their agencies even though they were aware that their lease provided them with the right to park. The Defendant avers that the Claimant had all the facts including the registration number of the vehicle, the registered keeper’s ownership document of the vehicle as well as proof of tenancy of the [address] and failed to validate these before issuing the PCN.7. The Defendant further avers that on the 22nd of May 2022, the date of the claim, the Defendant had parked their vehicle in the appropriate bay, and given the incessant rains on the day, had given preference to escorting their ailing passenger to the safety and comfort of their home rather than displaying the parking permit. Maintaining the residents' rights to peaceful enjoyment of the property does not include allowing everyone to be unfairly charged by a lurking ex-wheelclamper for attending to normal life necessities like parking to unload groceries or setting down passengers, etc.  Clearly there is no 'legitimate interest' supporting these enhanced parking charges in these circumstances.
8. Accordingly it is denied that:
8.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
8.2. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
8.3.  the Claimant has suffered or incurred any 'damages or indemnity costs if applicable' as vaguely stated in the original template POC dated 2018.

RV44

RV44 said:

Hi @Coupon-mad and @KeithP

I have followed multiple threads on drafting a defence. While I have copied much of the defence from other posts and intend to use the boilerplate defence (thanks to all the forum users), I wanted to bring to your attention the first part of the defence for review, especially paragraphs 6,7 and 8 below. I am mentioning the parking permit in para 6 as I did apply and obtain them, but wanted to point out that I did so as not to be bothered/harassed by the PPC. I also wanted to raise a point that the PPC were fully aware of all the facts and that I had the right to park before issuing me with a PCN (I'm not sure if I should raise this). I also want to draw your attention to 8.1 to see if my obtaining the parking permit was entering into a contract with the PPC.

Thanks,

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 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.  It is admitted that on 22nd of May 2022 the Defendant's vehicle was almost certainly parked at [location] because this was the defendant’s home, where they were de facto authorised to park a roadworthy vehicle.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

4. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose leaseholder agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant parking area, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle. A copy of the leasehold agreement will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

5. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

6. It is admitted that the Defendant had successfully obtained a ‘Parking Permit’ from the Claimant with effect from the 1st of March 2022. The Defendant applied and obtained a parking permit from the Claimant in order not to suffer harassment from the Claimants or their agencies even though they were aware that their lease provided them with the right to park. The Defendant avers that the Claimant had all the facts including the registration number of the vehicle, the registered keeper’s ownership document of the vehicle as well as proof of tenancy of the [address] and failed to validate these before issuing the PCN.

7. The Defendant further avers that on the 22nd of May 2022, the date of the claim, the Defendant had parked their vehicle in the appropriate bay, and given the incessant rains on the day, had given preference to escorting their ailing passenger to the safety and comfort of their home rather than displaying the parking permit. Maintaining the residents' rights to peaceful enjoyment of the property does not include allowing everyone to be unfairly charged by a lurking ex-wheelclamper for attending to normal life necessities like parking to unload groceries or setting down passengers, etc.  Clearly there is no 'legitimate interest' supporting these enhanced parking charges in these circumstances.

8. Accordingly it is denied that:
8.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
8.2. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
8.3.  the Claimant has suffered or incurred any 'damages or indemnity costs if applicable' as vaguely stated in the original template POC dated 2018.

I just realised that copy-paste from another document to here may have messed up the formatting, reposting earlier part of the defence here-

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 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.  It is admitted that on 22nd of May 2022 the Defendant's vehicle was almost certainly parked at [location] because this was the defendant’s home, where they were de facto authorised to park a roadworthy vehicle.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

4. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose leaseholder agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant parking area, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle. A copy of the leasehold agreement will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

5. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

6. It is admitted that the Defendant had successfully obtained a ‘Parking Permit’ from the Claimant with effect from the 1st of March 2022. The Defendant applied and obtained a parking permit from the Claimant in order not to suffer harassment from the Claimants or their agencies even though they were aware that their lease provided them with the right to park. The Defendant avers that the Claimant had all the facts including the registration number of the vehicle, the registered keeper’s ownership document of the vehicle as well as proof of tenancy of the [address] and failed to validate these before issuing the PCN.

7. The Defendant further avers that on the 22nd of May 2022, the date of the claim, the Defendant had parked their vehicle in the appropriate bay, and given the incessant rains on the day, had given preference to escorting their ailing passenger to the safety and comfort of their home rather than displaying the parking permit. Maintaining the residents' rights to peaceful enjoyment of the property does not include allowing everyone to be unfairly charged by a lurking ex-wheelclamper for attending to normal life necessities like parking to unload groceries or setting down passengers, etc.  Clearly there is no 'legitimate interest' supporting these enhanced parking charges in these circumstances.

8. Accordingly it is denied that:
8.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
8.2. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
8.3.  the Claimant has suffered or incurred any 'damages or indemnity costs if applicable' as vaguely stated in the original template POC dated 2018.

Coupon-mad

Show us the Particulars of Claim.